IMPORTANT POINT
Competition of flat should be made within time.

ORDER

C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 15.01.2016 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.381/2014 whereby Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.

2. The case of the Complainant/Respondent No.1 is that he entered into an agreement for sale for purchase of a flat at a consideration of Rs.8,25,000/- on 16th April, 2007 with the Petitioners/Opposite Parties 1 & 2. Respondent No.1 paid part consideration of Rs.4,31,000/- in cash and cheque on different dates. Respondent No.1 requested the Petitioners to deliver possession of the flat and execute the sale-deed, but the Petitioners failed to do so. As it amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, a consumer case was filed before the District Forum.

3. The Complaint was contested by the Petitioners. They admitted that they received a sum of Rs.4,31,000/-, out of the total consideration amount towards the flat, but Respondent No.1 failed to pay the balance amount within the specified time period. The question of handing over of the flat therefore did not arise. The building was completed in the year 2007 and since the Complainant failed to pay the entire cost of the flat they denied any negligence or deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint case.

4. The District Forum allowed the complaint case on contest against the Petitioners/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and also allowed ex-parte against Opposite Parties 3 to 7 without any cost. The Petitioners were also directed to hand over the actual vacant possession of the flat on payment of the balance consideration amount of Rs.3,94,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the order. All the Opposite Parties were directed to execute/register appropriate deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainants in respect of the suit flat within a period of one month from the date of payment of the balance consideration money. In the event of non-compliance the Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day from the date of the order till its realization as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the Opposite Parties in the State Consumer Welfare fund.

5. The matter was taken in Appeal by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal on contest.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the Respondents. Also carefully perused the record. An agreement for sale of flat was entered into by Respondent No.1 with the Petitioners on 16.04.2007. The due date of possession was 16.08.2007. Respondent No.1 paid Rs.4,31,000/- as part payment towards the total consideration of the flat. No communication demanding payment of balance consideration from the Petitioners is available in the lower Fora records. The flat was also not completed by the Petitioners as on the due date of possession. In fact, it is seen from the record that the occupancy certificate was issued only on 21.04.2009. Thus, there has been an inordinate delay in completion of the flat and getting the occupation certificate for taking possession of the same and registering the conveyance deed. It clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in completing the flat on time and giving the possession and registering the sale deed in favour of Respondent No.1/Complainant.

7. Both the Fora below have, therefore, rightly come to a concurrent finding of deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners. The State Commission has held that the District Forum was justified in passing the impugned order and dismissed the Appeal on contest.

8. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 2