ORDER

Manojit Mandal, President—This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 hereinafter (referred to as “the Act”) against the order dated 16/06/2020 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. CC – 129/2018.

2. In a nutshell, the complainant’s case in short is that one Uttam Kumar Halder entered into an agreement with the Appellant No. 1 for purchase of a flat dated 28/09/2018 on certain terms and conditions and Appellant No. 1 executed a deed of sale in favour of the said Uttam Kumar Halder, Respondent / Complainant on 04/10/2018. The Appellant No. 1 received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) in total from the complainant / respondent on different dates and Appellant No. 1 also executed receipt on 04/10/2018. In spite of the registration of the flat in favour of the Respondent / Complainant, the Appellant No. 1 and other Appellant No. 2 to 4 did not hand over the flat to the respondent for a considerable time and the respondent was compelled to file a number of cases against the Appellants for getting physical possession of the disputed property. As such, the Respondent was compelled to file a complaint case against the Appellants.

3. The said complaint case was dismissed on 20/03/2019. Against the order of dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the said appeal was allowed and the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission remanded back the case to the Learned District Commission below with a direction upon the respondent to appear before the District Forum on 26/06/2019 and this Commission directed the District Commission to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

4. This Commission has been pleased to observe that the Complainant’s alleged harassment and mental agony for non delivery of the flat in question is within the stipulated period and complainant claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh) only on account of such harassment and mental agony, so the Learned District Forum should not have dismissed the complaint in limini without affording the opportunity to the complainant to prove his case.

5. On receiving the order of the State Commission, District Commission below proceeded with the case.

6. On 16/06/2020 Learned District Forum (Now Commission) below was pleased to allow the complaint case ex parte against the Appellant.

7. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas, the Appellants have preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8. Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

9. It is stated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the present appeal should be remanded back to the District Forum below.

10. He has further submitted that the respondent filed the complaint by suppressing material facts and made concocted, baseless story therein. He has further submitted that the respondent obtained the judgment and order by misleading the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas. He further submitted that Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas have failed to consider that there was no deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite party / Appellants when possession of the first floor in question was given to the respondent.

11. He has further submitted that the respondent did not suffer any mental agony and harassment. He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 16/06/2020 is bad in law and should be set aside.

12. On the other hand, respondent appeared in person and has submitted that the Learned District Forum has exercised its jurisdiction properly and acted legally. He has further submitted that Learned District Forum below duly appreciated facts and circumstances of the case and has duly r