KJIHGFEDCBA f IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Reserved on : 17.11.2025 Pronounced on: 07.04.2026 REVISION PETITION NO 3072 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 10.07.2006 passed in Appeal No.392 of 2005 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata)

M/s Wellarea Trading Private Limited (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and having Registered Office at No. 268, Bangur Avenue Block-B, Kolkata-700055 Through its Authorized Signatory ...Petitioner V Navita Rustogi W/o Lokesh Rutogi R/o BD-139, Rabindra Palli (N)

Krishnapur, P.S. Rajarhat Calcutta-700079 West Bengal ...Respondent HON’BLE DR. INDERJIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. K.C. Aggarwal, Advocate Dated: 07th April, 2026 ORDER DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present complaint are that the petitioner/the opposite party no.l/ M/s Wellarea Trading Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the opposite party’) entered into an agreement for sale-cum- development agreement with the performa opposite parties with a view to construct a new building in the premises owned by the performa parties. The complainant/the respondent/Navita Rustogi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) intended to purchase a flat in a portion on the 2nd floor of the new building being unit no. B-2 containing super built up area of 1650 sq. ft. and built up area of 1320 sq. ft. with exclusive right to use the room/space and together with right to park one medium size motor car in the parking spaces and the open spaces of the rear of the new building along with one servant quarter in the ground floor measuring about 100 sq. ft. with undivided proportionate interest of and in the land measuring 6 Cottah 14 Chittaks 37 sq. ft. being numbered and described as plot 877 in Blockkk-A, Lake Town, Calcutta carved out of and being a portion of C.S. Plot numbers 425,442, 404 and 510 lying and situated at within Mouza-Patipukur, J.L. No. 24, Municipal Holding no 856 under Police Station Lake Down as detailed and described in para 5 of the complaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘the flat’) in the building which was being constructed by the opposite party as a promoter / developer. The opposite party had entered into a verbal agreement with the complainant as per mutual understanding between them at a total valuable consideration of Rs. 23,51,000/- for the flat in question and out of which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 4,51,000/- to the opposite party on various different dates against receipts. The complainant had spent considerable amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- for marbling the floor of the flat which was to be treated as an advance as per the said agreement. The complainant had paid a total sum of Rs. 5,91,000/- as advance to the opposite party against the total consideration of the flat. The balance consideration of the flat was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The flat was not completed in all respects and the sale deed was not executed but at the request of the opposite party and as per mutual understanding, the possession of the flat was taken by the complainant in the month of May 2004 and had entered into the said flat by spending an huge amount on performing the ceremony of ‘Griha Prabesh’ in this regard.

1.1. The complainant requested the opposite party to complete unfinished work such as sewerage connection etc. and also to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in respect of the flat after accepting the balance consideration amount but without any result. The complainant has received an Advocate’s Notice through Pankaj Saraf & Co. on behalf of the opposite party informing the complainant that the booking of the said flat stood cancelled for non-execution of the agreement for sale and she was asked to get refunded the amount so deposited as advance. The compl