SAI REALTY Vs. TUMPA MONDAL
LAWS(NCD)-2020-3-11
NCDRC
Decided on March 02,2020

SAI REALTY Appellant
VERSUS
TUMPA MONDAL Respondents




JUDGEMENT

C Viswanath, J. - (1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the order dated 01.12.2016 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.1325/2014 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was confirmed.
(2.) The case of the Complainant/Respondent No.1 is that she entered into an agreement for sale with the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1/developer on 10.05.2013 for purchase of flat No.3A measuring 1007 sq. ft. on third floor at holding No.183, Sukanta Pally, P.S. Sonarpur, District South 24 Parganas and an open parking measuring about 130 sq. ft. at a consideration of Rs.19,63,000/- The Complainant paid Rs.5 lakhs at the time of agreement for sale and subsequently on 10.06.2013 she made a further payment of Rs.3 lakhs. The due date of possession of the flat was July, 2014. To pay further instalments, Respondent No.1/Complainant sought loan from the HDFC Bank for Rs.11,63,000/-, but the bank sought a registered agreement for sale to process the loan, to which the Petitioners did not agree despite several attempts made by Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1/Complainant therefore approached the District Forum with following prayer: - "Hence, your petitioner prays that your honour would be graciously pleased to admit this petition and also be pleased to direct the opposite parties to execute and register the agreement for sale and deed of conveyance on or before expiry of time limit in respect of the scheduled flat alternatively through this Ld. Forum more fully described in the schedule 'A' hereunder and also direct the opposite parties to complete the incomplete works and to inform the complainant present status of the construction work and also pay compensation and demurrage of Rs.35,000/- for gross harassment, mental and financial agony of the complainant and further be pleased to pass such further or other order or orders and/or direction or directions admissible under law and equity as your honour may deem fit and proper. An ad interim order of injunction restraining the opposite parties their man and agents acting on their behalf to sell and transfer and or alienated the said scheduled flat to any third party till disposal of this petition."
(3.) The Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement disputing the claim of the Complainant and stated that Respondent No.1 was defaulter in payment of instalments. Due to default on the part of Respondent No.1, the construction of the flat got delayed. Hence, Respondent No.1 was not entitled to any relief and the Complaint be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.