IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dispute of facts - There is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to original Civil Court established under the CPC or appropriate State Law to have the claims decided between the parties.
(2) District Forum - District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint was justified in doing so, considering the very peculiar facts and circumstances in as much as the decision on the very disputed question of fact.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent/Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in First Appeal No. A/628/2016. Vide the said Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-III(South), West Bengal, in Complaint Case No.RBT/CC/124/2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was the purchaser of a flat who had entered into an Agreement for sale, with the then owner and developer, which was executed on 05.03.2012 and registered before the District Sub Registrar III at Alipore. It was alleged that the entire consideration was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party on the same day and Opposite Party No.1 received the money and acknowledged the same at Page 9 of the above registered Agreement. It was further averred that Sri Pradyut Kumar Sinha was the original owner of the land, who entered into a Development Agreement with the Opposite Party No.1, a sole proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Sri Subrata Paul on 18.04.2010. On 16.04.2010, Pradyut Kumar had already executed a registered Power of Attorney authorising the Opposite Party No.1 to construct the building in terms of Development Agreement. Pradyut Kumar Sinha passed away on 07.04.2012 and on his death, the property devolved on Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. On 21.08.2012, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 executed a supplementary joint venture agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 and a Power of Attorney in its favour.

3. The case of the Complainant was that it had been agreed between the parties that the building would be completed within 10 months However, the Developer completed some portion of the said flat, and did not complete it. It was further averred that the total consideration i.e. Rs.15,36,720/- was paid by the Complainant at the time of entering into the agreement for sale. However, the Opposite Party No.1 issued a letter after a lapse of 15 months alleging that the consideration money was not paid and the agreement is not a valid one. Consequently, the Complainant replied to the said letter on 17.06.2013. It was further submitted by the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 neglected completing construction, due to which the Complainant was denied possession of the flat, despite the Deed of Conveyance in his favour. Therefore, Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum being aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Parties.

4. The Opposite Parties appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations. It was contended by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant had assured him that the consideration money would be paid. However, the Complainant somehow managed the Opposite Party No.1 and got the agreement for sale executed and registered in his favour without paying a single paisa. It was further contended that the Opposite Party No.1 carried on the construction work relying upon the verbal assurances of the Complainant for payment. However, on not receiving any positive reply from the Complainant, the Opposite Party issued a Legal Notice dated 03.06.2013 asking for payment of the total consideration price. It was further contended that the Complainant replied to the Legal Notice stating that the money had already been paid. Consequently, the Opposite Party No.1 filed a suit before the Ld. 5th Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alipore. Hence, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 supported the contentions of Opposite Party No.1.

5. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.06.2016 dismissed the Complaint after observing that Complainant did not prove the allegations and was therefore not entitled to any relief.

6. Aggrieved by such Order, First Appeal bear