L.P. ENTERPRISE Vs. KANAILAL MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent/Complainant challenging the impugned Order dtd. 9/8/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in First Appeal No. A/628/2016. Vide the said Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order dtd. 3/6/2016 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-III(South), West Bengal, in Complaint Case No.RBT/CC/124/2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was the purchaser of a flat who had entered into an Agreement for sale, with the then owner and developer, which was executed on 5/3/2012 and registered before the District Sub Registrar III at Alipore. It was alleged that the entire consideration was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party on the same day and Opposite Party No.1 received the money and acknowledged the same at Page 9 of the above registered Agreement. It was further averred that Sri Pradyut Kumar Sinha was the original owner of the land, who entered into a Development Agreement with the Opposite Party No.1, a sole proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Sri Subrata Paul on 18/4/2010. On 16/4/2010, Pradyut Kumar had already executed a registered Power of Attorney authorising the Opposite Party No.1 to construct the building in terms of Development Agreement. Pradyut Kumar Sinha passed away on 7/4/2012 and on his death, the property devolved on Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. On 21/8/2012, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 executed a supplementary joint venture agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 and a Power of Attorney in its favour.

(3.) The case of the Complainant was that it had been agreed between the parties that the building would be completed within 10 months However, the Developer completed some portion of the said flat, and did not complete it. It was further averred that the total consideration i.e. Rs.15,36,720.00 was paid by the Complainant at the time of entering into the agreement for sale. However, the Opposite Party No.1 issued a letter after a lapse of 15 months alleging that the consideration money was not paid and the agreement is not a valid one. Consequently, the Complainant replied to the said letter on 17/6/2013. It was further submitted by the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 neglected completing construction, due to which the Complainant was denied possession of the flat, despite the Deed of Conveyance in his favour. Therefore, Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum being aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Parties.