BICHITRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY— Vs. GOUTAM GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 119/2011, the petitioner, (one of the opposite parties before the District Forum) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in complaint case No. 105/2009 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint ex parte against the petitioner and the other opposite parties with direction to the OPs to jointly and severally complete the construction of the flat in Schedule B within 6 months from the date of the order and deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant along with completion certificate after obtaining the same from the competent authorities together with sanctioned plan besides to execute and register the deed of sale in respect of the flat in question within one month from the date of the completion of the flat on receipt of the balance consideration from the complainant and in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 6,03,111 being the earnest money and pre-EMI charges of the bank already paid by the complainant in case the complainant fails to get an order for execution and registration of the property in Schedule B.A. compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and cost of Rs. 2,000 were also awarded in favour of the complainant. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum by rejecting the plea put-forth by the petitioner herein that under the agreement, he had no obligation to construct and transfer the flat in question as mentioned in Schedule B to the complainant and it was the sole obligation of the Promoter, i.e., M/s. Joy Lokenath Associates, Prop. Mr. Kankan Banerjee to do the needful. The State Commission have given cogent reasons as to why the said plea of the petitioner was liable to be rejected by observing as under: