ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The instant Appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 03.02.2020, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”), wherein the complaint was partly allowed and the Appellant was directed to execute the sale deed, pay to Respondent a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs to the Respondent.

2. For the convenience, the Parties would be referred to the positions they held in the Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2018 before the State Commission.

3. Brief facts are that on 03.05.2007, an Agreement was entered into between the Complainant and D. S. Naik Associates (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party”) to construct Bungalow No. A-14 measuring about 151 sq. mtrs at village St. Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa. Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- as consideration. This Agreement was notarized but not registered before the Sub-Registrar. The Opposite Party handed over possession of the bungalow on 10.06.2013 and Occupancy Certificate on 16.08.2016. As per Clause 26 of the Agreement, the Opposite Party was to form a Co-operative Society and collected an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the Complainant, but despite several requests, the Opposite Party failed to register Co-operative Society, and also did not enroll the Complainant as a Member or executed independent Deed of Sale. On 20.03.2018, the Complainant, residing in USA, came to Goa and found that the Opposite Party had executed few individual Sale Deeds in respect of some Purchasers but not for the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant got drafted a Sale Deed and paid a stamp duty of Rs.1,05,000/- on the Sub-Registrar valued for Rs.35,00,000/-. The Opposite Party, on 04.04.2018, though had initially agreed to execute the Deed of Sale, but demanded a further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- even though, it was already paid vide Agreement dated 03.05.2007. As demanded by the Opposite Party, the Complainant obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) on 06.04.2018. Despite complying with all the demands, the Opposite Party Builder failed to execute the Sale Deed. Therefore, being aggrieved by the deficiency in service from the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2018 before the State Commission for execution of Deed of Sale, refund Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.; compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.50,580/- towards the travel expenses due to postponement of Air ticket to the USA.

4. The Opposite Party filed its written version and submitted that the complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the agent, Mr. Ulhas Dhumaskar purporting to be the promoter of Opposite Party, who demanded a further amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Complainant. The Agreement for Sale dated 03.05.2007 was an unregistered document and no right was created in favour of the Complainant. That relevant time, Complainant had no permission under FEMA to acquire immovable property by a foreign national. The Complainant failed to obtain the requisite permission under FEMA till March 2018, but submitted a draft Sale Deed in April 2018 along with NOC. Despite repeated requests from the Opposite Party, the Complainant himself failed to register the Agreement for Sale though possession of the bungalow was handed over. Furthermore, the Complainant had agreed to become member of the co-operative housing society, signed a declaration and deposited his share, therefore, the prayer of the Complainant to execute the Sale Deed in his favour was premature and not maintainable.

5. After hearing both the parties, the State Commission held the Opposite Party liable for deficiency in services and directed the Opposite Party to execute sale deed and register the same before appropriate authority. It fu