SANTOSH PRAMANIK S/O. LATE KSHIROD BEHARI PRAMANIK, R/O. HOUSE NO. 1070, IIT KANPUR INDIA, KANPUR Vs. DEBASIS BISWAS & 3 ORS. S/O. LATE AMULYA RATAAN BISWAS, R/O. 17/21, DAKSHINDARI ROAD, P.O. SREE BHUMI, P.S. LAKE TOWN, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the West Bengal, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short, 'State Commission') in F.A.No.195 of 2015.

(2.) Brief facts of this case as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that Petitioner entered in to an agreement for sale with the Respondents/Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 on 19.05.2007, for purchasing a self-contained flat, being flat no. 5A on the 4th floor, having a super built up area of 660 sq. ft., in a multistoried building, for the consideration amount for Rs. 8,58,000.00. The developers agreed to complete the said building and to finish the flat and make it habitable and to deliver the possession of the same within 24 months from the date of the execution of the said Agreement for Sale and the purchaser should pay the consideration money and other dues at the time of delivery of possession. The petitioner claimed to have paid the entire amount of total consideration money, on different dates, to the Respondents No.1 and 2.

(3.) It is further stated that after making the payment of the entire consideration amount, the petitioner asked the respondents to hand over the actual vacant possession of the said flat with a copy of the sanction plan and also to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance, in respect of the said flat, but the respondents failed to do the same in spite of several and repeated requests made by the petitioner and further demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 and also threatened to transfer the said flat to a third party, in case of failure to pay the same, which amounts to deficiency and negligence on the part of the respondents, rendering services towards the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner sent a letter on 29.11.2012 to the local police, and also lodged a complaint before the Consumer Affair Dept. on 23.07.2013, but to no avail. Hence, petitioner has filed a consumer complaint seeking adequate redressal and compensation.