Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

Brief facts of the case:    This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the opposite party nos. 4 to 7 and Srikumar Banerjee, since deceased (the father of opposite pasty nos. 8 and 9) being the landowners of the aforesaid property represented by their Constituted Attorneys entered into one development agreement with the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 on 9^th March, 2009 on certain terms and conditions and also executed one power of attorney in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the complainant purchased a flat from the project of the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 measuring about 600 sq.ft. being flat no. 302 at the North Eastern side on the 2^nd floor, at Mouza- Uttarpara, J.L. No. 12, comprised in R.S. Dag no. 435/5327 under Khatian no. 2120 corresponding to L.R. Dag no. 649 under L.R. Khatian No. 4351/1, 4351, 4376, 1512, 141/1, 2715, 3545 being municipal holding no. 18/4, Rajendra avenue 3^rd lane, within the ambit of the Uttarpara- Kotrung Municipality, P.O. & P.S. Uttarpara, A.D.S.R. Office- Serampore, dist. Hooghly which is more fully described  and for a total purchase price of flat at Rs. 6,48,000/- and the complainant  and opposite party nos. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement for sale of such transaction on 9^th April, 2009 on certain terms and conditions mentioned therein and the complainant had paid the total consideration price on different dates and got possession of the flat. Subsequently, complainant mutually agreed to purchase one flat measuring about 743 sq.ft being flat no. 302 on the second floor in place of one flat measuring about 600 sq.,ft being flat no. 302 on the same floor for which the petitioner paid extra consideration amounting to Rs. 3,33,000/. Even after receipt of the full consideration the O.P nos. 1 to 3 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement despite repeated reminders and requests.

The complainant being frustrated sent a legal notice dated 06/06/2018 with the request for execution and registration of deed of conveyance of the flat as per agreement dated 09/04/2009.

In the facts and circumstances this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties giving rise to the instant proceeding for the claims mentioned therein.   

                        Brief facts of case by opposite parties Nos. 1,2 &3

            The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 contest the case by filing a written version denying therein the material allegations complaining further that the complainant deliberately suppressed the actual facts and events. Practically the complainant failed to perform the duty on his part. They further state that the alleged notice dated 06/06/18 is invalid and the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit on that basis. They specifically claim that they are entitled to get Rs. 1,39,000/ from the complainant. In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Show cause in form of written version on behalf of O.P nos 5,6,7 & 9

            They claim that they are not the parties to the written agreement for sale dated09/04/2009 and as such they cannot be held liable for any sort of consequences arising out of the said alleged agreement for sale. The specific case of them is that they are always ready and willing to execute the registered deed of sale subject to payment of full consideration of the flat in question.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument advanced on behalf of the complainant heard in full.

            From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no: 1

In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer in terms of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issue No: 2

Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents of the district of Hooghly and the claim also does not exceed the power of this Commission and hence this issue is disposed of in the affirmative.

Issue nos. 3& 4

Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

The specific case of the petitioner is for purchase of one flat measuring about 743 sq.ft. being flat no. 302 instead of one flat measuring about 600 sq.ft. of the same floor for which the petitioner claims to have paid an extra consideration of Rs. 3,33,000/ in addition to consideration amount for Rs6,48,000/. Further case of the petitioner is that he has also been given possession of the said flat. But for reason best known to the O.P nos. 1, 2, 3 they have not made execution and registration of deed of conveyance of the said flat.

Instead of given opportunities to all the O.P nos. 1 to 9 for many a time even after filing written version and reply to show cause neither has dared to turn up to contest the case giving rise to ex parte hearing of the instant proceeding.

This Commission has taken into consideration the photocopy of the agreement dated 13/04/2009, the photocopy of the possession letter of the flat in question more or less 743 sq. ft dated 15/04/2011 which clearly manifests that said possession was given to the complainant after payment of full consideration. The specific averment of the O.P nos. 1 to 3 about their entitlement to get Rs. 1,39,000/- from the complainant has not been substantiated at all. Thus, it seems evident that the complainant is entitled to get the deed of conveyance registered and other reliefs as prayed for.

Both the issues are thus disposed of.

Hence,

ordered

that the complaint case no. 121 of 2018 be and the same is disposed of ex parte against all the O.Ps.

      It is held that complainant is entitled to get an order directing opposite parties to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the property described in the schedule of the complaint petition within 60 days from passing of this order and complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. The cost of registration is to be borne by the complainant.

      Opposite party nos. 1 to 3 are directed to comply and/ or carry out this order positively within 60 days otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.

            The opposite parties are also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.