STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/140/2020 Debdatta Roy PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Sri Debabrata Roy, 197/2, Sukanta Nagar, Sarani-2, P.O. Michael Nagar, Kolkata- 700 133, P.S. Airport.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus M/s. Siddha Real Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another PRESENT ADDRESS - Rep. by Managing Director, 99A, Park Street, Kolkata -700 016, P.S. Park Street.,WEST BENGAL.

The Chairman, Baranagar Municipality PRESENT ADDRESS - P.O. & P.S.- Baranagar, Kolkata - 700 036, Dist. North 24 Pgs.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Mr. Sankar Chatterjee (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Mr. Sibaji Sankar Dhar. (Advocate)

DATED: 12/12/2025

ORDER

Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member The instant case has been filed by the complainant u/s 17 (wrongly written as u/s 12) of C.P. Act, 1986 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the OP No. 1 on 10.04.2017 for purchasing a flat of super built up area of 1280 sq.ft. in residential Apartment No. OA/1805 th in the 18 Floor for a total consideration of Rs.61,82,400/-. The Complainant has already paid the total consideration amount for the flat in question. In addition to that he also paid Rs.3,50,000/- for the parking space and Service Tax of Rs.3,45,030/-. The Complainant has also paid electricity charges of Rs. 51,200/- and generator charges of Rs. 25,000/-. Besides that the OP No. 1 has taken GST payment of Rs.1,64,302/-. The Complainant thus paid total amount of Rs. 71,17,932/-. Till today the OP No. 1 has not delivered the possession of the flat which was to be handed over by November, 2018. The matter was duly intimated to the OP No. 1 regarding the execution on the basis of the Agreement for Sale vide Advocate notice dated 21.12.2019 and 09.01.2020. The Complainant has further alleged that the OP No. 1 has taken excess amount of Rs. 5,09,332/-. In spite of taking huge amount the OP No. 1 did not hand over the possession of the flat and register the instrument in favour of the Complainant which amount to deficiency in service. Hence the application praying for direction upon the OP No. 1 to execute the sale proceeding of the schedule mentioned flat along with possession in favour of the Complainant and to register the parking space in favour of the Complainant along with refund of Rs. 5,09,332/- which was taken by the OP No. 1 as service tax and GST payment along with to pay Rs.8,54,152/- @ 18% per annum for delay of 8 months after the buffer period for not transferring the schedule property in due time as per Agreement for Sale.

The OP No. 1 contested the case by filing the written version. In their written version OP No. 1 denied all materials allegations inter alia stated that the application is not maintainable before this Commission. The OP No. 1 has further stated that they have discharged its contractual liability towards the Complainant. Therefore, the allegation regarding deficiency in service on the part of the developers are false, frivolous and malafide. The OP No. 1 has already taken all necessary steps for completion of the project and if any delay occurred for completion of the project there is no control of the OP No. 1. The complaint has been filed without factual basis. The statement towards payment are all matter of records. The present complaint is devoid of any merit and is not maintainable against the OP No. 1. Hence, the OP No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Upon receiving the notice the OP No. 2 neither appeared nor filed written version. Therefore, the case is proceeding ex parte against OP No. 2.

On the date of final hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant entered into the Agreement for Sale with the OP no. 1 on 10.04.2017 for purchasing the flat