Deficiencies in service by both Builder and Bank resulted in liability for compensation due to mental anguish and harassment caused to the Complainants.

1. Appeal No. 1822 of 2019 is filed by the Complainants under Section - 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 13.8.2019 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No. SC / 07 / O / 2007.

2. Cross Appeal No. 1868 of 2019 has been filed by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 13.8.2019 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No. SC / 07 / O / 2007.

3. The case of the Complainants is that on 1.5.2003 they entered into an Agreement with Opposite Party No. - 1 for purchase of a 'Row House' being House No. B - 15 in the Complex "The Tarrace" at Merlin Greens situated at Mouza, Kriparampur, P. S. - Bishnupur, District - South 24 Parganas for a total consideration of Rs.14,25,000. Complainants paid Rs.50,000, vide cheque No.745541 dated 1.5.2003, towards earnest money. The Complainants also paid a sum of Rs.1,93,750 towards the balance of earnest money totaling to Rs.2,43,750. Supplementary Agreement was executed on the same day i.e., 1.5.2003. Thereafter, the Complainants approached Opposite Party No. - 3 for obtaining house loan of Rs.15,00,000 which was duly sanctioned. Thereafter, Tripartite Agreement between the Complainants, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. - 3 was executed on 21.1.2004. Opposite Party No. - 3 released a sum of Rs.13,81,250 directly to Opposite Party No. - 1 out of the sanctioned House loan of Rs.15,00,000 and kept a sum of Rs.1,18,750 for registration of the Deed of Conveyance. The Complainants paid in total Rs.16,25,000 out of which Rs.14,25,000 was the total consideration for the Row house and Rs.2,00,000 towards contribution towards the Corpus Fund and for other charges like maintenance charges etc. The Complainants got possession of the house on 20.4.2004 and Opposite Party No. 2 provided water supply, electricity, generator service and security services. On 30.6.2004, the Complainants requested Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 to get the Deed of Conveyance duly registered in their favour, but the same was not done. Opposite Party - 2 informed the Complainants, vide letter dated 23.10.2006, that since they failed to fulfil their financial obligation, cheque of Rs.1,93,750 being dishonored twice and default in payment of installments to Opposite Party No. 3 i.e., Bank, the Supplementary Agreement dated 1.5.2003 stood cancelled. The Complainants would be treated as trespassers and had to vacate the Row House. All the basic facilities were withdrawn and the Complainants were compelled to shift from the Row House to a rented house on 23.10.2006. Opposite Party No. 2 took repossession of the property and transferred the same to a third party in collusion with Opposite Party No. 3 at Rs.20,51,000 though it was officially valued at Rs.31,25,100 as per the report of the Sub-Registrar Office. Though the Complainants were ready and willing to repay their home loan in full, they were not allowed.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the Builder, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint in the State Commission on 1.3.2007 which was disposed by the State Commission in favour of Complainants by order dated 24.2.2009. Challenging the said order, the Builder preferred an Appeal in the National Commission, being First Appeal No. 128 of 2009, which