M.K. Basu, President— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the Midnapore District Consumer Forum in Case No. 12 of 2003 under which the Forum allowed the complaint filed by Shri Pranatosh Goswami (Present Respondent) directing the OP, Shri Garmeet Singh (Present Appellant) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,800 plus Rs. 84,525 together with interest @ 8 per cent from the date of receipt of the amount and further directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant as compensation together with Litigation Cost of Rs. 5,000. It has been also directed that all such payments shall be made within the period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. Being aggrieved by this judgment the OP, Shri Gurmeet Singh has preferred this Appeal challenging the said order as erroneous and illegal and paying for an order from this appellate Court for setting aside the same.

2. The case of the complainant, in short was as follows. He was an employee of the WBSEB and was posted at Panchkuri and he entered into a contract with the O.P. for purchase of a flat. The complainant booked a flat in the 3rd floor of the proposed building (Block E) and paid Rs. 20,800 in advance against Receipt dated 15.10.2001. The total consideration money was settled at Rs. 4,22,625. As per terms of the Agreement dated 5.12.2001 it was settled that the complainant would pay the consideration money by six installments and the OP undertook to execute and register a Sale Deed in favour of the complainant after receiving the full consideration money from him. The first installment of Rs. 84,525 was paid to OP by the complainant on 26.11.2001 and 27.11.2001, but the construction work was started after a long time. Following a verbal agreement between the parties it was settled that after producing the Deed of Agreement the complainant would fetch the loan from his office and after such sanction of loan he would pay the consideration money. On 1.4.2002 and 7.9.2002 the OP asked the complainant to take possession of the flat when the complainant informed him that the flat was not complete in all respects. Then, as advised by the O.P., the complainant met one Mr. Surajit Dutta for preparation of a Sale Deed and at that time he handed over the original copy of the Deed of agreement to that gentlemen for that purpose. On 10.12.2002 the complainant received a Lawyer’s Notice containing some allegations against him from the O.P. Later the OP refused to execute any Sale Deed in his favour. The O.P. thus violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 3.12.2001 and his refusal to execute a Sale Deed was illegal and improper. Hence, this consumer case has been filed against him.

3. The O.P. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that the statements of the complainant were all false and frivolous and he had no prima facie case and was not entitled to any relief. His case, in short, was that he started construction of multi-storied building at Khargapur in 2001 under the banner of Asiana Builders. The O.P. already transferred the disputed flat to another by means of a registered Sale Deed and the possession of that flat had already been given to that purchaser. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. After taking evidence from the parties and considering the same as also the legal position the Forum came to the conclusion that the O.P. had no right either to cancel the Agreement or to forfeit the amount deposited by the complainant. The O.P. having received such amount was legally bound to refund the same with interest when he had been unable to deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant as per terms of the Agreement and his transfer of the same to another person than the complainant was illegal being in violation of the terms of the Agreement. On this score the OP was found deficient in service and thus liable to compensate the complainant along