SULACHANA HALDER Vs. ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is that she paid a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- for a flat measuring about 750 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.260/- at premises No.421 A, Parnasree Palli, Calcutta-7 and Rs.8998/- towards purchase of stamp paper and registration fees and other incidental legal expenses for registration of conveyance deed for the said flat. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties gave possession of the flat on 5.3.1991 in unfinished condition but the Opposite Parties did not take any steps for registration of the conveyance deed in respect of flat. Several reminders were given by the complainant but to no effect. Hence the complainant prays for direction upon the Opposite Parties to register the conveyance deed in respect of the flat and to pay the enhancement in the stamp duty for his registration of a flat and also registration cost etc. and also prays for damages and costs of the proceedings etc.

(2.) The Opposite Parties denied all material allegations contained in the petition of complaint and specifically pleaded that the petition of complaint is not maintainable under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 and contended that the dispute in question cannot be branded as consumer dispute and therefore do not come within the purview of the said act and this Hon'ble State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.

(3.) The Opposite Parties further alleged that the complainant was allotted two flats and it was the condition that she would not transfer by sale, the flats prior to conveyance of the same but the petitioner/complainant in violation of the specific clause of the agreement sold out one flat out of two flats allotted to her at a higher price for pecuniary benefit and the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner/complainant. It is also the allegation of the Opposite Parties that it caused major addition and alteration of the said two flats for which the complainant agreed to compensate the Opposite Parties but she failed and neglected to do so. It is further alleged that due to inordinate delay for making payment of consideration money for the two flats, the construction could not be completed within the stipulated time. The Opposite Parties denied in particular the delivery of flats in unfinished condition. It is also the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the petitioner/complainant although had tried to evade stamp duty by insisting on to the Opposite Parties to register the conveyance deed only on the basis of valuation of land but not on the basis of the valuation of the flats raised upon proportionate share of land allotted to the petitioner/complainant. The Opposite, Parties also denied their responsibility for making payment in the enhancement of the stamp duty and registration fees for registering the conveyance deed in respect of the flat and prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with examplary cost. DECISION