The jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to adjudicate disputes between developers and purchasers is barred by the provisions of Section 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993.

Subrata Talukdar, J.

In this application under Article 227 of Constitution of India the order dated 19th July, 2013 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dist. North 24 Parganas (for short Ld. CDF) in CC Case No. 24 of 2013 is under challenge. By the said impugned order the Ld. CDF was pleased to direct the present petitioner to pay cost of the sum of Rs. 10,000/- against the contesting Opposite Parties (for short OPs) along with ex-parte costs of Rs. 10000 against the non-contesting OPs.

The Ld. CDF also directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 50000 as also a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and for adopting unfair trade practise. The said sums were directed to be paid within 1 month from the date of the order failing which for each day’ delay interest was assessed at Rs. 500/-.

The brief facts of this case are as follows:-

a) That the OP1/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short CP Act) against the present petitioner and the OP2 before the Ld. CDF, Barasat praying, inter alia for a direction jointly or severally on the petitioner and the OP2 to register the Deed of conveyance in respect of the flat mentioned in the schedule of the complaint in favour of the complainant. It was also prayed that the petitioner and OP2 should bear the registration costs of the flat and deliver peaceful, vacant possession to the complainant. Prayer was also made for compensation and litigation cost as well as interim relief directing the petitioner and the OP2 to maintain status quo in respect of the said flat.

b) According to the complainant, the present petitioner is a Developer and the OP2 is the authorized person of the present petitioner. Both the petitioner and the OP2 invited the intending Purchaser to purchase the flat at Krishna Abasan. The complainant being desirous of purchasing the flat agreed to the proposal of the Developer and his authorized representative and advanced sums of money towards booking of the flat. Several other details with regard to the purchase of the flat were agreed upon between the Developer and the complainant.

c) The complainant alleges that the Developer failed to keep the promise to enter into an agreement with the complainant within the specified period and, no agreement was executed in spite of substantial delay. Thereafter upon waiting for a considerable period the complainant, who had paid Rs. 50,000/- towards application money found that the Developer was unwilling to perform his part of the agreement. The complainant alleges that during his visits to the Developer on 21st January, 2013, she was told that the complainant has to wait further if she is interested in purchasing the flat.

d) Being frustrated at the inaction on the part of the Developer and his authorised representative to execute the agreement the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. CDF with the prayers as noted above.

The Ld. CDF was pleased to decide the complaint being CC Case No. 24 of 2013 by order dated 19th July, 2013. The Ld. CDF, after noticing the relevant facts came to the following findings:-

i) That it is an admitted position that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash was received by the present OP2 as the authorized representative on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. the Developer. On receipt of the said sum of money it was assured by the Developer that the sale agreement shall be executed subject to payment of additional 20%, that is Rs. 75000 towards extra charges. However, it was not denied by the Developer that the valuation of the flat was Rs. 2151 per sq. ft. and, the date was fixed on 10th August, 2011 for executing the said agreement.

ii) It is not denied by the Developer that on 10th August, 2011 the complainant did attend his office. However, on behalf of the Developer it has been submitted that the company was dissolved due to financial problems among its Directors with effect from 31st December, 2012. However, the Ld. CDF noticed