BISWANATH AICH Vs. RAMA PROSAD CHATTOPADHYAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 21. 7. 2006 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereafter the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 45/a/2003. By the said order, the State Commission affirmed the order dated 24. 9. 2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereafter the District Forum), 24 Parganas (North), Barasat in consumer complaint no. 88 of 2002 and directed the respondent (petitioner herein) to furnish the deed of conveyance for the flat in question to the respondent (original complainant) for registration and also hand over the completion certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of the State Commissions order. In the aforesaid consumer complaint, the District Forum had ordered as under: -

(2.) THE dispute in this case pertains to the sale of a flat consisting of three rooms, toilet and bathroom in the Southern portion of the first floor of the house of the petitioner to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 3. 70 lakh. This was the position as per the letter of intent to sell (Baina Patra in Bengali, hereafter referred to as the letter of intent) signed by the respondent on 13. 04. 1998. By this letter, the petitioner also stated to have accepted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as part of the consideration. The remaining amount appears to have been paid in six installments: the first five of Rs. 50,000/- and the last one of Rs. 20,000/- during the period of 28. 04. 1998 - 20. 07. 1998. The respondent / complainant, however, received possession of the flat without completion certificate of the competent authority because the said certificate could not be obtained by the petitioner for lack of compliance with some mandatory requirements. As a result, the complainant faced various hardships, including the threat of disconnection of electric supply. The petitioner also failed to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent as agreed, despite several requests of the latter. This compelled the respondent to seek redress before the District Forum, which, on consideration of the matter, passed the order, dated 24. 09. 2002 already noticed above.

(3.) AGAINST this order, the petitioner approached the State Commission, which in turn affirmed the order of the District Forum, as also noticed above.