MANTU RANJAN DUTTA Vs. AHINDRA MOHAN BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, 'the State Commission') in S.C. Case No. FA/1003/2012 Mantu Ranjan Dutta Vs. Ahindra Mohan Biswas by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 1 & 2 entered into an agreement for purchase of 771 sq. ft. flat from OP NO. 4/Respondent No. 3 on 22.5.2010 for a consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. Complainant paid entire amount except Rs.1,00,000/- towards consideration, but OP No. 3 did not execute deed of conveyance inspite of repeated requests. It was further submitted that OP No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 with unlawful object was denying right of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2/Petitioners and Respondent No. 5 resisted complaint and submitted that power of attorney granted to OP NO. 3 & 4 has been revoked by deed of revocation dated 15.6.2007 and OP No. 4 is not owner of the property and there was no obligation on the part of OP No. 1 & 2 to execute deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. OP No. 3 & 4 also resisted complaint and submitted that OP No. 1 & 2 owner of the land are withholding registration of flat. It was further submitted that OP No. 4 was given absolute power to register deeds in favour of intended purchasers and OP NO. 1 & 2 has illegally revoked power of attorney and there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed complainant to pay balance money Rs.1,00,000/- to OP No. 4 and directed OP NO. 4 to execute sale deed and further directed OP NO. 1 & 2 to confirm execution of deed and further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost against all the OPs. OP No. 1filed appeal before State Commission which was dismissed by impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.