IMPORTANT POINT
Fresh cause of action - In the present case also the complaint case has been filed after almost six years from the date of serving legal notice to the opposite parties. Even though the complainants have made several requests to the opposite parties but the same cannot be considered as the accrual of fresh cause of action.

JUDGMENT

Manojit Mandal, President—This consumer complaint case has been filed by the complainant under section 34 & 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4 valued at Rs.71,48,000/- ( Rupees seventy one lakh and forty eight thousand) only. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint case praying for the following reliefs:—

“(i) Handover the physical possession of the said flat making it habitable by completing all interior and exterior works of the flat by executing the registered Deed of Conveyance in favour of complainant.

(ii) Handover and/or supply the completion certificate of the said project to the complainant.

(iii) Refund a sum of Rs.29,22,782/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Two) only towards earnest money paid by the complainant to the opposite parties alongwith interest

(iv) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as the cost of the legal expenses tentatively incurred by the complainant.

(v) Pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) for compensation.

(vi) Refund the earnest money along with interest @18% per annum which will be calculated from the date of receiving of the said money by the opposite party and

(vii) During the pendency of the instant complaint case interim order may kindly be passed for maintaining status quo as on this date so that the said flat may not be encumbered with anywise by the opposite parties and/ or restraining the opposite parties from annihilating the said plot of land and from selling to third party

(viii) Ad interim orders in terms of the prayer (v) above.

(ix) And to pass further order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant at length and in full on the point of admission.

3. We have carefully perused the complaint case wherefrom it appears to us that the opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 are the land owners / sellers and developers. The complainant and the opposite parties entered into an agreement for sale on 07.09.2013 and an agreement for sale was executed between the parties. As per the agreement for sale made by and between the complainant and the opposite parties, the opposite parties are supposed to give a self contained residential flat at Unit No. 5B on the 4th floor in Block No. 14 having an aggregate super built up area (SBA) of 1712 sq. ft. be the same and little or more or less, together with one car parking space on the stilt floor together with the amenities and facilities attached thereto in the Project of the opposite parties namely “Sanjeevan Orchards II” for a total consideration of Rs.68,48,000/- (Rupees sixty eight lakh and forty eight thousand) only for the flat and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) only for garage, total amounting to Rs.71,48,000/- (Seventy one lakh and forty eight thousand) only within a stipulated period of thirty months from the date of agreement for sale with a grace period of six months thereafter as assured in page No. 4 under the heading “completion and delivery of possession” of the said agreement for sale i.e. within March, 2016.

4. Further case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not only failed to act according to the contractual obligation but have also engaged in fraudulent trade practice, and even after 10 years, the project site is partially vacant and only few work has been done. The opposite parties have clearly failed to hand over the physical possession of the said flat by executing the registered deed of conveyance after the expiry of the stipulated time along with the grace period. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant has visited the offices of the opposite parties and the project site on several occasions but the opposite parties have always resorted concocted stories and avoided disclosing the actual fate of the p