CHANDAN BANIK Vs. SUMONA BAGCHI (BHATTACHARYA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.07.2011, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. CC/08/72, "Sumona Bagachi (Bhattacharya) & ors. versus M/s Ratnakar Properties Pvt. Ltd. & ors.," vide which the complaint filed by the present respondents 1 & 2 was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainants / respondents 1&2 filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in respect of non-execution of registration of conveyance deed in respect of three flats in question. The OP 1 and present respondent 3, M/s Ratnakar Properties Pvt. Ltd., is the builder / developer. The OP 2, Smt. Nirmala Banik was the sole owner of municipal premises 26 A, Hindustan Park, Police Station Gariahat, Kolkata, comprising land and building. After the death of the said Nirmala Banik, OP 2, the present petitioner, Chandan Banik and respondents 4 & 5, Ashim Banik and Ashis Banik were impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Nirmala Banik. The petition has been filed by Mr. Chandan Banik only and his other two siblings have been made respondents 4 & 5.

(3.) The said Nirmala Banik, OP 2 entered into some arrangement with OP 1/respondent 3 for developing her property. The complainants booked three flats in the new building complex, being built and erected in the name of "Orchid Towers". They entered into agreement with the OPs and made payments for the flats. It has been alleged in the complaint, however, that the OPs failed to execute and register the conveyance deeds in their favour despite the request made to them. They sought directions from the State Commission to the OPs for execution of these deeds, to hand over all relevant documents and to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for mental harassment and Rs. 60,000/- as cost of litigation and 24% interest on the awarded amount. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to execute and register conveyance deed in favour of the complainants. They also directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to all the complainants saying that the cost of registration had been increased in the meantime. They were also allowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.