MITA MAJUMDER Vs. SREESREE PARTHA SARATHI DEVELOPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is filed against the interlocutory order in IA/231/2022 dtd. 6/4/2022 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (in short State Commission') Consumer Complaint No.496/2018 whereby the State Commission allowed the application.

(2.) Alongwith the First Appeal, IA/5173/2022, an application for condonation of delay of 5 days has also been filed. However, as per computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 24 days. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, IA/5173/2022 is allowed and delay condoned.

(3.) Case of the Appellants/Complainants is that they booked flat No.2A on second floor, Block B measuring 1019 sq. ft. super built up area and a car parking space with Opposite Party No.1/Builder, for a total consideration of Rs.51,37,400.00, by paying an advance of Rs.1,00,000.00. On 18/11/2015, the Appellants and Opposite Party No.1 entered into a tripartite agreement whereby the Appellants paid an amount of Rs.14,41,220.00 i.e. approximately 85% of the total consideration. As per agreement, possession of the flat was to be delivered upto 30/1/2017, failing which Opposite Party No.1 was to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000.00 per month till the date of possession. The Appellants/Complainants made total payment of Rs.42,43,813.00 by availing a home loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs from the State Bank of India. On 8/12/2017, Opposite Party No.1 sent a letter demanding further payment. The Complainants visited the premises and found that most of the construction work was not completed and even the plumbing work was also not completed even after expiry of due date of possession. In the first week of January, 2017, Opposite Party No.1 handed over a draft deed of conveyance to the Appellants. The said deed contained arbitrary, unilateral and completely one sided clauses. The Appellants sent a legal notice dtd. 31/5/2018 seeking refund of the entire amount. Opposite Party No.1, vide reply dtd. 20/6/2016 refused to refund the amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer: -