Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Baibhab Sur – Appellant
Versus
Swapan Sengupt – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—The present appeal under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) read with Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2015, assails order in Complaint no. 328 of 2015 on 02.11.2017 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission) in allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties jointly and severally directed to deliver the possession and to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat and the car parking space as mentioned in the schedule of the agreements for sale in favour of the complainant within 60 days from the date of the order subject to payment of balance consideration amount.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the State Commission against the Developer (respondent no.1) and Land Owners (respondent nos. 2 to 7) alleging deficiency in service in the construction and transfer of flat after receipt of the requisite payment of consideration. The appellant states that on 24.03.2013 he entered into two Agreements for Sale (in short, ‘the Agreements’) with the respo
Deficiency in Service – Deficiency in service is manifest as possession has not been offered by the respondents despite payment of nearly 90% of the consideration agreed upon between the parties.
The execution of a conveyance deed and prior acceptance of compensation settle a builder-buyer dispute, preventing subsequent claims of deficiency despite contractual delays.
Alternate Flat – In the instant case, the impugned order has rightly upheld the prayer of the appellant for possession and ordered the handing over of possession of the alternative flat to the appell....
“Failure of developer to hand over possession within the contractually stipulated period amounts to deficiency in service.”
Allottees held entitled for compensation for delay in delivery of possession of flat in question.
Possession - Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the Flat as a period of more than 12 years has lapsed from the committed date of delivery.
Non-availability of the Occupancy/Completion Certificate points to the deficiency on the part of the Appellant.
(1) Bald assertion – In the absence of any evidence being brought on record, merely a bald assertion that the project was delayed due to in action by the Government or its statutory organisations and....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
