MERLIN PROJECTS LTD Vs. PANDAV ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been preferred by the Colonizer, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and their Manager, questioning the correctness and legality of order, dated 24.02.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short "the State Commission") in SC Case No. 07/0/2007. By the impugned order the State Commission has directed the Appellants, who were arrayed in the Complaint as Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively, to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the subject flat in favour of the Complainants upon payment of the costs of registration as agreed to between the parties. The State Commission has also awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainants as also Rs. 5000/- towards costs.

(2.) Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that on being approached by the Respondents/Complainants, the Appellants allotted to them Row House No. B-15, Merlin Gardens, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata by way of an Agreement of Allotment on 01.05.2003. The total sale consideration for the said house was settled at Rs. 14,25,000/-. The Respondents paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money by cheque dated 01.05.2003. A supplementary agreement was executed on the same day incorporating certain new clauses, not relevant for the present case. The Respondents applied for housing loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from Union Bank of India and on sanction thereof, on 21.01.2004, a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the Appellant Company, the Bank and the Respondents. The Complainants paid a further sum of Rs. 1,93,750/- towards the balance earnest money to the Appellant Company. The receipt of Rs. 2,43,750/-, by the Appellant Company from the Respondents, was acknowledged in the said Tripartite Agreement. Out of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the Bank released to the Appellant Company a sum of Rs. 13,81,250/-, by pay order dated 25.02.2004 leaving a balance of Rs. 1,18,750/- for the purpose of registration of Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Respondents. Thus, the Appellant Company received a total sum of Rs. 16,25,000/- towards full consideration of Rs. 14,25,000/- for the said property and an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as contribution to the Corpus Fund for facilities as defined in Article I of Agreement dated 01.05.2003.

(3.) The Respondents were put in possession of the suit property on 20.04.2004 and were provided with water, electricity and other allied facilities. It seems that on certain issues, relations between the Respondents and Appellant No.1 turned sour and exchange of unpleasant letters ensued. Ultimately, vide letter dated 23.10.2006, Appellant No. 2 informed the Respondents that since they had failed to fulfil their financial obligation, in as much as the cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,93,750/- issued by them on 22.09.2003 had been dishonoured twice and they had also defaulted in payment of instalments to the Bank, Agreement dated 01.05.2003 had been cancelled and they were being treated as trespassers. They were informed that the security and management staff had been instructed to desist from rendering any of the common services and/or facilities including disconnection of generator service. The Respondents were asked to immediately vacate the said premises and handover the same to them.