KANAK BALA MONDAL Vs. ANJALI KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present Revision Petitions filed by Kanak Bala Mondal and others, (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners) under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act'), is to theOrderdtd. 10/8/2018 in Appeal Nos. 352 and 353 / 2013passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission has affirmed the findingsrecorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barasat (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum') holding deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner for not executing the sale deed after having received the sale consideration from the Respondent/Complainant.

(2.) Since the question of law involved in both the cases is identical/similar, both the Revision Petitions are being disposed off by this Common Order. However, for the sake of convenience RP No. 2678 / 2019 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated herein are taken from RP No. 2678 / 2019.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Nirmal Ch. Modnal was the owner of property as described in the schedule B in the Complaint. Nirmal Ch. Mondal died intestate leaving behind his wife Kanak Bala Modnal, son Sri Subrata Mondal and daughter Smt. Deepali Mondal (Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3) as legal heirs, who being the joint owners of the said land by way of inheritance started to construct a multi storied building consisting several flats and shop room upon the aforesaid property. While the construction work was in progress, Respondent/Complainant, Anjali Karmakar intended to purchase one Flat on the floor measuring about 500 sq. feet covered area at a consideration of ?500Z- per sq. feet, i.e., total consideration of ?2,50,000Z-. It is the case of the RespondentZComplainant that after taking advance money of ?1,90,000Z-, the Opposite Party No.3 put his signatures on the Agreement for sale. It is the case of the RespondentZComplainant that despite having received the balance sale consideration, PetitionersZOpposite Parties neither executed the deed of conveyance nor given possession of the said Flat to the RespondentZComplainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the PetitionerZOpposite Parties, Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum.