SHRACHI LEATHERTEX PVT. LTD. Vs. SABRA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitions are filed by the Petitioners under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 1106/2014 and Appeal No. 1107/2014 dated 12.07.2018.

(2.) In the Complaint Case No. 428 of 2010, it was stated by Respondent No.1/Complainant that an agreement for sale was executed between him and Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 for purchase of a self-contained Flat No. 5E (previously numbered as 6) in the 5th Floor, measuring about 1357 sq. ft. super built-up area, Flat located at Premises No. 23, Marquis Street, P.S. New Market, Kolkata-700016, at a consideration of Rs.1,300/- per sq. ft. for the Flat and Rs.75,000/- for a covered garage, measuring about 150 sq. ft. on the Ground Floor totaling to a sum of Rs.20,73,100/-. The Complainant stated that he had paid almost the entire consideration amount, except the balance amount of Rs.71,785/-, Rs.51,785/- for the flat and Rs.20,000/- for covered garage. On 01.08.2005, the developer delivered the possession of the Flat to him. However, after taking the possession, he found that the measurement of the flat was 1050 sq. ft., instead of 1537 sq. ft. super built up area. Time and again he requested the Petitioner to measure the said flat, but in vain. Hence, a Complaint was filed by Respondent No.1 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and other Respondents (i.e. Respondent No. 2 and 3).

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner in the District Forum stating that the allegations were baseless, as the lift service was provided to the residents of the premises for 24 hours with power backup service, and large numbers of flat owners were enjoying the flat and no one has made any such allegation. He further submitted that the Petitioner invited forming an association to look after the maintenance and had taken all necessary steps for forming the same, but the residents as well as the Respondent No.1 had not responded. He further submitted that no construction work was left incomplete as per the agreement between Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner. For some unfounded reasons, Respondent No.1 does not agree to get the sale deed registered. The valuation of the property has also increased in the meantime. Respondent No.1 has to clear all the fees etc. which have increased since then and the Petitioner was always willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is yet to pay Rs.71,785/-, through possession had been taken by Respondent No.1.