IMPORTANT POINTS :
(1) Deficiency in Service – A developer’s failure to complete a project within the stipulated timeframe (30 months) and their default on agreed financial obligations – such as bounced advance cheques and unpaid rent – clearly constitutes a “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
(2) Unfair Trade Practice – It is considered an “unfair trade practice” and a flagrant breach of contract for a developer to sell a flat to a third-party buyer before delivering the agreed-upon allocation of the property to the original landowner.

ORDER :

Bibhas Ranjan De, President—This Consumer Complaint has been filed U/S. 35 read with Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2019), alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and seeking direction to complete construction of the subject project and to deliver possession of the ‘B’ Schedule Property/Owner’s allocation along with other ancillary reliefs:—

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant is the absolute owner of the subject land mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ to the Consumer Complaint. On 03.08.2017, Complainant entered into a Development Agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 for construction of G+4 residential building named “Geetanjali” with certain terms and condition. But the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to complete the construction within the period of 30 months agreed between the parties as per development agreement, thereby attracts deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, 2019. Opposite Party No.1 issued a Cheque bearing No.056766 dated 04.08.2017 to the tune of Rs.7 lacs (Advance payment) which was dishonoured. However, Opposite Party No.1 paid Rs.10 lacs out of Rs.38 lacs and also failed to pay the monthly rent of Rs.3000/- from November, 2021. Opposite Party No.1 further executed one Registered Sale Deed being No.7432 of 2017 in favour of Opposite Party No.2 on 16.12.2019 without delivering the Owner’s/Complainant’s allocation violating the terms of development agreement which tantamounts to unfair trade practice U/S1(47) of the Act, 2019.

3. The instant consumer complaint is preferred under the aegis of Section 35 read with Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, invoking the jurisdiction of this Forum to seek the following reliefs:-

a. A direction upon the OP no.1 for completion of the construction of the multistoried building over the ‘A’ Schedule property and to deliver possession of the ‘B’ Schedule property (the owner’s allocation as stated in the development agreement dated 03.08.2017) after handing over the completion certification of the construction over the ‘A’ Schedule property and/or

b. Directing the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.28,24,000/- in favour of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of recovery and/or

c. An Order of permanent injunction restraining the OP no.1 from transferring the possession of any flat upon the ‘A’ Schedule property in favour of the OP no.2 and/or from executing any deed of sale in favour of any third party in respect of any flat or shop room upon the ‘A’ Schedule property until the delivery of the possession of the ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of the complainant and/or

d. An order of injunction restraining the OP no.1 from transferring the ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of any other person till the disposal of the case and permanently after trial in the same manner;

e. A direction upon the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the complainant for harassment and for mental pain and agony of the complainant as created by the OP No.1.

f. A direction upon the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant for deficiency of services and for conducting unfair trade practices.

g. A direction upon the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the complainant as litigation cost;

h. Any other relief/relieves as your Honour may deem fit and proper as per equity and law.

4. Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide Order dated 6th July, 2023. Opposite Party No.2 entered appearance in this case but no evidence was adduced on his behalf. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by Complainant, Mr. Dev Kumar Biswas.

Argument Advanced:-

5. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Bibaswan Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the Complainant, has contended that the allegation of Consumer Complaint has not been denied either by f