In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 386/2011

1)                   Utpal Vyas and

2)                   Madhavi Vyas,

Both of 29/3, Gobinda Bose Lane,

P.S. Kalighat, Kolkata-25.                                                                            ----------- Complainants

---Versus---

1)                   The City Manager,

Home Search, ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd.

Landmark Building, 224, A.J.C.  Bose Road,

P.S. Bhowanipur,  Kolkata-20.                                                                ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.    18   Dated  31-12-2012.

Sharmi Basu, Member

            In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that complainants purchased a residential flat along with a car parking space which has been registered between the complainants and land owners and developer on 16.12.09. In terms of the registered deed of conveyance, o.p. has to provide a car parking space. O.p. made a deal between the complainants and the vendors as well as promoter for purchase of the flat together with  car parking space and raised brokerage and consultancy charges of Rs.1,28,000/- and service charges of Rs.14,184/- and the complainants paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. But after repeated requests complainant did not get redressal. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. had entered his appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against him and interalia stated that the charges for brokerage and consultancy had been taken from the complainants only for searching the property, but it was mentioned in the agreement for the aforesaid purpose between the complainants and o.p. and it was clearly mentioned that o.p. is not liable for any dispute between the purchaser and land owner and/or developer and not at all responsible for delivery of possession of registration of he property in question.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is observed by this Forum that there was no agreement in between the complainants and o.p. as regards delivery of possession and registration of the property in question and the duty of o.p. was limited to the extent of searching a property suitable for the complainants which o.p. performed. The contention of o.p. is that they have no further obligation to the complainants so far as delivery of possession is concerned and we further find from the record that execution of deed of conveyance has already been done and we are of the views that o.p. has no further responsibility and/or liabilities and/or obligation to the complainants in respect of the property in question. That apart, the agreement between the complainants and o.p. there is no whisper of obligation of o.p. as regards delivery of possession and/.or registration of the property at all. Therefore, we find that o.p. has got no deficiency being a service provider to its consumers / complainants and complainants are not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case stands dismissed on contest without cost.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.