This is a complaint made by Sri Ranendu Sengupta son of Late Himangshu Sengupta of 89, Chander Village Road, First Floor, P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata-700082 against Tirupati Construction having its registered office at 241, Haridevpur Road, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700082, Sri Deb Kumar Das son of Sri Pulin Das and sole proprietor of Tirupati Construction of 89, Chander Village Road,P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata-700082, Sri Shibaji Bagchi and Sri Megnath Bagchi praying for  directing OPs to forthwith complete the pending works and to direct all the OPs to forthwith execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant. Alternatively the Deed of Conveyance be execute and register through a Commissioner appointed by this Forum and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- .

Facts, in brief, are that Complainant is a bonafide citizen. Complainant on 20/6/2001 entered into an agreement for sale with OP No.1 Kalyani Bagchi since deceased duly represented by her lawful Constituted Attorney Deb Kumar Das OP No.2 and mother of OP No. 3 & 4. On the strength of that agreement for sale on 20/6/2001 Complainant  hired the service of OPs for a total consideration of Rs.3,92,075/- for constructing a residential flat measuring super built-up area of 729 square feet under Haridevpur P.S. Complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.1,24,925/- towards the cost of extra jobs. It was agreed between the parties that residential flat shall be completed within eighteen months from the date of the execution of the agreement for sale. Further, it was agreed that OPs duly execute the registered Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant. Such Deed of Conveyance was specifically agreed that OPs are duly execute and registered the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant.

This agreement for sale is marked Annexure ‘A’

There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and Complainant suffered loss and mental agony due to act and conduct of OPs. Complainant duly acted in terms of the agreement and made payment. The possession of the flat was duly handed over to the Complainant on 5/12/2002 and the OP also issued a possession letter dt.5/12/2002 but since they did not made Deed of Conveyance. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. So Complainant filed this case.

On the basis of above facts complaint was admitted and OP No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version.

OP has denied all the material allegations of the complaint in written version. In addition to that OP have stated that Complainant sat idle for more than 13 years after getting delivery of the possession of the flat and certainly after 13 years filed this case and praying for registration of the Conveyance Deed.

In the year 2006 Kalyani Bagchi was died and she has revoked the power of attorney dated 7/6/2001. As such OPs have no authority to sign the Conveyance Deed. So, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

Written version has also been filed by OP No. 3 & 4 wherein they have denied all the allegations made in the complaint.

Further,OP No. 3 & 4 have stated that Rs.3,92,075/- & Rs.1,24,925/- had paid by the Complainant towards a residential flat including extra job measuring about 729 Sq. ft. This OPs are sons of Kalyani Bagchi . Their mother had executed Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of OP No.1. Complainant is in possession of the flat since 2002. These OPs are not liable for making registration and so they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this OP No. 1 & 2 filed questionnaire to which Complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No. 3 & 4 also filed questionnaire. Thereafter, OPs have also filed evidence-on-affidavit to which Complainant has filed questionnaire and OPs are filed affidavit-in-reply.

On perusal of this it appears that there are allegations which are being reflected from the complaint and written version.

Main point for determination is that whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

First prayer of Complainant is to admit this complaint which has already been allowed and also to issue show cause notice upon all the OPs which was done by this Forum. After receiving notice OPs appeared.

Prayer ‘C’ is to direct all the OPs to forthwith complete the pending work. In this regard there is no material either in the complaint or in the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire filed by the Complainant to establish as to what works are to be completed. Complainant is in possession of the flat since 2002 and preferred to file this complaint on 30/1/2016 i.e. after about 13 years. During this period much water flown in the Ganges. Complainant surprisingly woke up to the facts to some work which is still left to the flat by the OPs and so Complainant has made this prayer. As such there is no ground to believe this prayer and it cannot be allowed.

Third prayer is for execution of Registered Deed of Conveyance. In this regard also it is noteworthy that Complainant got the possession in 2002 and suddenly he thought for getting Registration of Deed after 13 years. Furthermore even it is believe that the flat is still not completed for which Complainant has made prayer ‘C’, question of Registration of Conveyance Deed does not arise.

Further, Complainant made an alternative prayer which cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstances stated above.

Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Since Complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hands the question of granting any reliefs to Complainant does not arise.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

CC/15/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.