MANASH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. SUBRATA KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the Order dated 31.12.2010 in Case No. 103/2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas allowing the complaint against the O.P./Appellant with direction upon the O.P./Appellant to get the flat registered in favour of the Complainant/Respondent within 15 days from the date of order on receiving the balance consideration money of Rs. 3,50,000 (Three lakh fifty thousand) only apart from payment of Rs. 1,000 (One thousand) only as costs. The complaint case, in brief was as follows:

(2.) THERE was an agreement between the Complainant/Respondent and the O.P./Appellant in regard to the purchase/sale of a self contained flat at a consideration of Rs. 9,50,000 (Nine lakh and fifty thousand) only. A sum of Rs. 50,000 (Fifty thousand) only was paid as advance by the Complainant on 3.5.2009. Subsequently, a new agreement for sale was executed by and between the parties on 8.5.2009 and a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 (six lakh) only was received by the O.P./Appellant The possession of the flat was delivered to the Complainant/ Respondent in the first part of June 2009 he allegedly detected that some construction as well as interior decoration works were not completed. On that ground the Complainant refused to take possession but after getting assurance from the O.P.that they would complete the unfinished works within one month, possession of the flat was taken over by the Complainant. But as there was no further work in spite of assurance by the O.P/Appellant, the Complainant/ Respondent sent a legal notice on 26.2.2010 asking the O.P./Appellant to complete the works and also to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat after taking balance consideration money. As there was no response from the O.P./Appellant who duly acknowledged the receipt of the legal notice on 27.2.2010, a complaint case was filed before the learned Forum.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the O.P. by filing written version wherein ail material allegations were denied. It was the specific contention of the O.P/Appellant that the agreement dated 30.4.2009 being cancelled, a fresh agreement was entered into by and between parties on 8.5.2009, and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000 in terms of the second agreement not being paid, though the Complainant has been in possession of the flat, the complaint deserved to be dismissed. It was contended that the subject flat which had been purchased by the O.P/Appellant on 27.7.2005 was a complete one and the question of undertaking 'rest work' did not arise. Further, the Complainant having failed to pay the balance consideration money amounting to Rs.3,50,000 within 180 days from the date of agreement i.e., 8:11.2.009, the agreement stood cancelled. Admittedly, the O.P./Appellant was the owner of the subject flat, and not a promoter/developer.