Registration of a flat is an essential part of the agreement for sale and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President— This is a petition of complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in respect of house construction and claiming compensation for the refusal of the opposite parties to register the flat agreed to be sold to the complainant. The complainant's case is that he had entered into a written agreement with opposite party No. 3 Asish Kumar Mukherjee, Promoters, and Constructors and Proprietor of M/s. Shivcon of 54-B, Jadavpur Central Board, Calcutta-32. It has been stated that the plot of land at 90 Lake East, 4th Road, Calcutta-75 belonged to two sisters Shyamali Chug & Dipali Sinha Chowdhury (opposite parties No. 1 & 2). The opposite party No. 2 had executed a general power of attorney in favour of opposite party No. 1 and by virtue of that power of attorney opposite party No. 1 made a deal with the opposite party No. 3, namely, the Proprietor of M/s. Shivcon to construct a four storeyed building at the said paid plot of land. The complainant had agreed to purchase a flat consisting of 625 sq.ft. on the first floor being flat No. 3-B at Shyamali Apartment at 90 Lake East, 4th Road, Calcutta-700 075 at a consideration of Rs. 2,04,375/- with a booking charge of Rs. 30,000/-. According to the complainant she had paid all the aforesaid amounts as also an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as registration fee for registration of the flat. After the completion of the flat the possession of the same was handed over to the complainant but the opposite party No. 3 refused and neglected to register the flat in favour of the complainant although requested for a good number of times for the same. The complainant alleges that he tried to get the flat registered with the humble request to the opposite party No. 3 and had even prepared a sale deed for registration of the flat by paying Rs. 3,000/- to the recommended Advocate of the opposite party No. 3. For this purpose he also purchased stamp papers costing Rs. 26,260/- on 5.2.1997 and registration deed papers were prepared accordingly. The complainant also states that she paid Rs. 2,500/- as the requisite fees to the Advocate but even then both the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 refused to attend the Registration Office for registration of the deed. In the mean time the complainant's husband who was a retired doctor got an employment at Pithoragar in Uttar Pradesh but he had to come down to Calcutta for making arrangement for the registration of the flat. Due to the delaying tactics of the opposite parties he could not join his service in time and ultimately lost the same. The complainant has accordingly filed this complaint detailing the expenses incurred by her for the flat and claiming damages for financial loss on account of the loss of service of her husband and the amount she was compelled to pay for making a loan of Rs. 45,000/- to meet the registration expenses.

2. On receipt of the complaint, notice was duly served on the opposite parties for giving their version of the case. The opposite party No. 1 appeared but opposite party Nos. 2 &3 did not appear inspite of the service of notice and warrant of arrest had to be issued for causing the appearance of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 ultimately appeared and filed the written objection. The case is contested by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 3. The point for consideration is if there was any deficiency in housing construction as alleged by the complainant and if so what relief, if any, she should be entitled to.

Decision

3. It is admitted by the opposite parties that there was a written agreement between the parties for the sale of the disputed flat at the price agreed to between the parties. It is also agreed that possession of the flat was amicably given to the complainant. The fact, however, remains that the flat was not registered. The complainant's case is that she paid Rs. 20,000/- as Registration Cost by two cheques. The receipt of thi