DR. BHANU PRASAD KHAN S/O. LATE DEBENDRA NATH KHAN, TARAKESHWAR RURAL HOSPITAL QUARTER QUARTER NO. 3, TARAKESHWAR, HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL Vs. SUMIT KUMAR DEY PROPRIETOR OF M/S. DECON, 51/83, DUM DUM ROAD, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.12.2014, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 172/2013, filed by the appellant, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/opposite party (OP) for appearance before this Commission, but the respondent did not appear despite service.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant Dr. Bhanu Prasad Khan booked a flat No. 1-G, 1st Floor in "TITAS Apartment" of the OP Builder by making payment of 1 lakh through cheque No. 077887 dated 29.07.2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Howrah Main Branch as stated in the consumer complaint. The complainant was assured that the said flat was almost ready for use and shall be transferred to him within a period of four weeks, and that there was no need of executing an agreement between the parties. However, on the failure of the OP to handover the said flat, the complainant sent a notice dated 2.04.2003, to the OP. In reply to the said notice, the OP asked him to take refund of the money paid by him. However, the complainant again requested the OP to have the sale-deed executed in his favour, but the OP returned the booking amount by cheque as an enclosure to his letter dated 30.05.2013 addressed to the complainant. The said cheque was, however, returned by the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question seeking directions to the OP to handover the possession of the flat to him and also to have the sale-deed executed. In addition, a compensation of 15 lakh was also demanded.