IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of registered deed of assignment - District Consumer Commission has rightly concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of opponents, also issued direction for execution of registered deed of assignment and awarded costs and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant against all the opponents.

ORDER

S.T. Barne, Judicial Member.—Appellant – Inderjitsingh Jagirsingh Bansal has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order in Complaint No.560 of 2014 decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune on 22/06/2016. The appellant is the original opponent no.7 and partner of original opponent no.1 partnership firm, known as M/s. Bansal Constructions. The Respondent No.1 – Mrs. Ashwini Ajit Panse, is the original complainant. Respondent no.2 is the partnership firm and Respondent Nos.2(A), 2(B), 2(C), D, E and F are the legal heirs of deceased partner Jagirsingh K. Bansal. Parties are referred hereinafter as per their status in the original complaint.

2. It is the case of complainant before the District Commission that she is retired Central Government employee and senior citizen. The parties are running business of construction in the name and style as “M/s.Bansal Constructions”. They are doing construction on Plot Nos.1 and 2 of S.No.30/1, Hissa No.1/5 and 1/7 at Dhankawadi, Pune. Said plot was originally belonging to Mr.Jagirsingh Kartarsingh Bansal and it has been developed by the opponents as per the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. One of the partners – Mr.Jagirsingh Kartarsingh Bansal had executed power of attorney in favour of his son/partner Mr.Inderjitsingh J. Bansal for development of said property. This complainant had booked flat in the said building bearing Flat No.45 on third floor for total consideration of Rs.1,89,000/-. Initially, she had deposited amount of Rs.20,000/- as booking charges on 22/05/1994. Then on 17/12/1994 she had issued another cheque of Rs.80,000/-. The opponents agreed to execute the registered agreement in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The opponents received total amount of Rs.1,93,000/- from time to time from complainant towards consideration of flat including M.S.E.B. connection charges. However, in spite of receiving entire amount the opponents avoided to execute registered Agreement to Sell. It is further contention of the complainant that opponent delivered physical possession of flat to the complainant on accepting total consideration. The opponents have also given no objection to transfer the electricity meter in the name of the complainant. Gunthewari certificate is also issued by the Municipal Corporation, Pune. The opponents had also agreed to execute registered Agreement to Sell and demanded Rs.1,07,600/- towards stamp duty. The complainant has also paid the said stamp duty to opponents. The draft was prepared and it was also franked. However, the opponents did not remain present before the Sub-Registrar, Haveli. Thus the opponents by remaining absent before the Sub-Registrar avoided to register the agreement and thereby caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. Due to aforesaid act of the opponents the complainant could not utilise sum of Rs.1,07,000/- and sustained loss. Hence, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint claiming directions against the opponents to execute registered agreement for sale and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss sustained on account of stamp duty.

3. The present appellant/opponent no.1 gave appearance before the District Commission and filed his written statement to the complaint. It is his contention that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action. It is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is the contention of this opponent that the opponent was partnership firm during life time of his father wherein the opponent no.1 and his father were the partners. However, it is denied by this opponent that he was avoiding to execute the registered agreement in respect of Flat No.45, even after receiving the entire consideration and failed to put the complainant in possession. It is also denied that when the opponents agreed to execute the registered agreement she has paid amount of Rs.1,07,600/- for s