Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:

Case Details and Parties * The case is before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, decided on 13-03-2026 (!) . * The Appellant/Complainant is Rajib Ch.Das, residing in Mahishadal, Dist. Purba Medinipur (!) . * The Respondent/Opposite Party is S.B.D. Construction, represented by Papiya Sau, residing in Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur (!) (!) . * The case number is SC/19/CC/693/2019 (!) . * The bench consisted of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De (President) and Hon'ble Mrs. Mridula Roy (Member) (!) . * The Complainant was represented by Salil Kumar Maity and Pinki Saha (!) . * The Opposite Party was represented by Mr. Subhas Jana (!) .

Prayers and Cause of Action * The Complainant filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (!) . * The Complainant sought a decree directing the Opposite Party to execute and register the deed of conveyance for the flat (!) . * The Complainant also sought compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs for deficiency in service, and litigation costs of Rs. 1 lakh (!) . * The subject flat is located on the 4th floor (northeast facing) of Radhika Apartment (!) . * An agreement for sale was executed on 29.06.2017 (!) . * A booking amount of Rs. 1 lakh was paid via Cheque No. 905969 dated 29.06.2017 (!) . * The total consideration price was Rs. 30,49,200/- (!) . * The agreement stipulated that the balance amount would be paid within 24 months from the date of signing (!) . * The Complainant claimed a mutual agreement to deliver the flat by December 2017 (!) . * To facilitate the purchase, the Complainant obtained an advance of Rs. 3,05,000/- from his General Provident Fund on 08.08.2017 (!) . * The Complainant applied for a home loan from State Bank of India on 01.11.2017 (!) . * The Opposite Parties refused to execute and deliver the flat despite the Complainant's requests (!) . * A complaint was initially filed before the Assistant Director, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell on 06.12.2017, where mediation failed (!) . * The Bank informed the Complainant on 16.03.2018 that the time limit for the loan had expired (!) . * On 03.08.2019, the Opposite Parties sent a letter along with a bank draft of Rs. 1 lakh (!) . * The instant complaint was lodged on 4 September 2019 (!) .

Opposite Parties' Case * The Opposite Parties denied the allegations, stating only Rs. 1 lakh was paid at the time of the agreement (!) . * They claimed the Complainant paid nothing towards the balance amount until the expiry of the agreement on 29.06.2019 (!) . * They alleged the Complainant never approached them for execution/registration before the expiry of the agreement (!) . * They contended the Complainant filed a false complaint before the Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell regarding a verbal assurance for December 2017 delivery (!) . * They stated they waited for months after the expiry and subsequently refunded the earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh (!) .

Arguments * Mr. Shyamvar Deb (Complainant's counsel) relied on verbal assurance for December 2017 delivery and the Complainant's efforts to secure funds (GP Fund advance and Bank loan) (!) . * Mr. Deb cited letters between parties to show repeated requests by the Complainant which were ignored (!) . * Mr. Indranil Nandi (Opposite Party's counsel) argued the Complainant filed the earlier complaint with false allegations (!) . * Mr. Nandi relied on the Banker's letter dated 20.03.2018 to show the loan sanction expired because the Complainant did not approach the bank for documentation within the validity period (!) . * Mr. Nandi submitted that there is no evidence the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties with a proposal to pay the balance amount before the 24-month expiry (!) . * Mr. Nandi cited the case Alagammal and others vs. Genesan and another (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 232 (!) .

Decision and Reasoning * The Commission relied on the principle enunciated in Alagammal (Supra) regarding the essence of time in contracts (!) . * The Court found that in Alagammal, the respondents failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated six months (!) . * The Court noted that the respondents in Alagammal had not complied with their obligation within the fixed period (!) . * The Court observed that the acceptance of payment after the sale deed was executed to another party indicated no enforceable right accrued for the original respondents (!) . * The Court applied the ratio from K.S. Vidyanadam, stating that if time is not the essence of the agreement, and no notice was given to the developer to get the sale deed executed within time, relief cannot be maintained (!) . * The Court noted that in K.S. Vidyanadam, the legal notice was issued after two-and-a-half years from expiry, whereas in the present case, it was issued after more than six-and-a-half years (!) (!) . * Undisputed facts found by the Commission include: existence of a formal agreement (!) ; delivery was contingent on full satisfaction of consideration within 24 months (!) ; Complainant sought intervention of the Grievance Redressal Cell alleging oral covenants after 6 months (!) ; Complainant lacked liquidity to pay the balance amount after the 24-month period (!) ; and the bank revoked the loan sanction (!) . * The Commission concluded that the Complainant failed to demonstrate readiness to remit the balance consideration (!) . * The Consumer Complaint stands dismissed (!) . * All connected pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (!) .