IMPORTANT POINT
Where appellant was given opportunity before DF to present his case but he chose to be silent, he cannot raise it in appeal, more so when he has not come with clean hands.

P.K. Chattopadhyay, Member — This Appeal is directed against the Judgement and order dtd. 22.2.99 passed by the District Consumer Forum, South 24 Parganas, in D.F. Case No. 355 of 1998. Under this judgment the Forum allowed the Complaint filed by Sri Sukhendu Chatterjee (Present Respondent No. 1) on contest against M/s. Dee Bee Construction, a Partnership Firm and its partners, Sri Debasis Bhattacharya and Shri Biswajit Banik (Present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4) and ex parte against Smt. Sudha Roy (Present Appellant) with a cost of Rs. 500/- and directing the opposite parties, M/s. Dee Bee Construction, Sri Dehashis Bhattacharya, Sri Biswajit Banik and Smt. Sudha Roy to complete the work of the Flat in terms of the agreement dtd. 10.3.97 and deliver its possession to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. They were also directed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of delivery of possession of the flat to him, in default, the complainant was at liberty to put it into execution in accordance with law.

2. Being aggrieved by this order the OP No. 4, Smt. Sudha Roy (Present Appellant) moved this Appeal challenging the order as erroneous, illegal and improper. The case of the complainant, in brief, was that the Complainant, Shri Sukhendu Chatterjee entered into an agreement with the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3,

M/s. Dee Bee Constructions, a Partnership Firm, its Partners Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya and Mr. Biswajit Banik, (Present Respondents) on 10th March, 1997, for purchase of self-contained flat, measuring 590 Sq. ft. built-up area at the Southern portion of first floor in a proposed 3-storied building to be erected and/or built up by them at premises No. 27/66, K.M. Naskar Road, Calcutta-700 040 together with open parking space for two wheeler at a total consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-. The Respondent No. 2,3 & 4 were developing or building the said premises by virtue of Power of Attorney granted by the land-owner, Mrs. Sudha Roy (Present Appellant) to the OP No. 4.

3. In accordance with the terms of said Agreement, the present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 (OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3) were supposed to deliver the possession of the said flat on or before June, 1997 with a grace period of further 30 days, i.e. maximum by June, 1997 and in the event of their failure to handover the possession of said flat by July, 1997, they would pay Rs. 1,500/- as rental charges to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant w.e.f. August 1997 till they actually handed over the possession.

4. The complainant, did not comply his part of obligation in terms of the said agreement, but the Respondents neither handed over the possession of flat nor paid the rental charges @ Rs.1,500/- per month from September, 1997. Subsequently, by a letter dated 22nd April, 1998, the OP Nos. I, 2 & 3 (Present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4) assured to complete the pending work and to handover the flat within 45 days from the date of further payment of Rs. 33,382/- which included cost of extra works. The complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- in two installments and further Rs. 900/- on 4th July, 1998 but even then five flat was’ not handed over and hence the complainant filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, South 24 Parganas, praying for handing over the possession of flat after completion of the same in terms of the agreement and also for execution of the Deed of Conveyance in his favour, besides payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and cost and other reliefs as prayed therein.

5. The District Forum after admission of the complaint, sent notices upon the Ops and after receiving the notice the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 (Present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4) appeared and contested the case but the OP No. 4, Smt. Sudha Roy (Present Appellant) did not bother to contest the case inspite of duly receiving the notice and then allowed the case being heard ex-parte against her. In her argument the Appellant sta