SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KEBAL KISHAN BARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by the Complainant is directed against the order, dated 17.06.2008, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal Kolkata in SC Case No. 130/A/2007, whereby the State Commission has overturned the order made by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Howrah (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. HDF 207 of 2006.

(2.) Succinctly put, the material facts are that Respondent No. 1, (Opposite Party No. 1) was the owner of property situated at 232/C/1, G.T. Road, Belur, Howrah. He, along with his son, Respondent No. 2 herein (Opposite Party No. 2) developed the said property into several residential flats. For the purpose of development and sale of flats so constructed, Respondent No. 1 executed Power of Attorney in favour of Respondent No. 2. On 21.11.2003 the said Respondents entered into an agreement for sale of a flat on the first floor to the Complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 2,88,900/-. A sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- was paid by the Complainant by various cheques. In addition, a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was stated to have been paid in cash against proper receipts between the period 10.07.2003 to 27.11.2003. As per the agreement, possession of the flat was to be delivered to the Complainant by 31.05.2004. Despite repeated requests, the said Respondents refused to deliver possession of the flat. He claims to have learnt in the meantime that some time in the year 2005 the said Respondents had inducted Respondent No. 3 (Opposite Party No. 3) in the said flat without his knowledge and consent. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Respondents No. 1 and 2 for not delivering possession despite payment of full consideration, the Complainant filed Complaint against the Respondent, praying for delivery of possession of the flat, free from all encumbrances, or in the alternative, for refund of Rs. 2,90,000/- with bank rate of interest thereon along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs.

(3.) Before the District Forum, Respondents No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte, as they had refused to accept the notice. The complaint was, however, contested by Respondent No. 3 mainly on the ground that he was not aware of the agreement for sale between the Complainant and Respondents No. 1 & 2; the said Respondents had entered into an agreement with him for sale of the said property on 19.01.2004; sale deed in his favour was executed on 08.09.2004 and in the absence of any claim by the Complainant against him, the Complaint deserved to be dismissed.