w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Sonartori Projects & Another v/s Tapan Kumar Laha & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2009PTC134015

Company & Directors' Information:- TAPAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24233UP2015PTC073525

Company & Directors' Information:- TAPAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000UP2015PTC073525

Company & Directors' Information:- G C LAHA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24222WB1950PTC018745

Company & Directors' Information:- A N LAHA & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC021277

Company & Directors' Information:- H K LAHA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1951PTC020133

    First Appeal No. 2020 of 2019

    Decided On, 17 February 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Appellants: Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Trinath Gangopadhyay, Joydeep Mukherjee, Advocates.

Judgment Text

This Appeal has been filed with a delay of 40 days. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants on IA/165662019, an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons given in the application, delay is condoned.2. Case of Respondent No. 1/Complainant is that he entered into an agreement on 2.4.2012, with the Appellants/Opposite Parties to purchase a flat measuring about 1,115 sq. ft. along with covered car parking space in “SONARTORI” at Mouza-Sulanguri, P.S. Rajarhat, District North Parganas, Hatiara No. 2, Gram Panchayat for a total consideration of Rs. 20 lakh. The entire consideration amount was paid to the developer, vide cheque No. 676250 drawn on HDFC Bank dated 23.2.2012. Another sum of Rs. 62,344 was also paid towards other charges. The due date of possession was June, 2013. Despite elapse of many years, the Appellants did not execute the sale deed. Hence, a Complaint was filed before the State Commission seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to hand over possession of the flat with parking space and to execute the conveyance deed in accordance with the agreement, apart from damages and interest.3. The Appellants/Opposite Parties filed their written version denying the allegations of the Complainant. The State Commission allowed the Complaint with following directions:“(i) The O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to deliver possession of the subject flat and car parking space as mentioned in the Second Schedule to the agreement for sale dated 2.4.2012 in favour of complainant within 60 days from date;(ii) The OPs are jointly and severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the property mentioned above within 30 days from the date of delivery of possession;(iii) The OP Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date 1.4.2014 till the date of delivery of possession over the amount of Rs. 20,00,000.(iv) The OP Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant as cost of litigation;(v) The above amount of compensation and litigation cost must be paid within 60 days from date, in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from date till its realization.”4. Heard the learned Counsels for the Appellants and the Respondents. Also carefully perused the record. The landowners/Opposite Parties 5 to 13 entered into an agreement with Opposite Parties 1 to 4 for raising construction of multi-storied building in the land measuring 87 decimal in “SONARTORI” at Mouza-Sulanguri, P.S. Rajarhat, District North Parganas, Hatiara No. 2, Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, on 2.4.2012, Opposite Parties entered into an agreement with the Complainant to sell flat in the aforesaid project for a consideration of Rs. 20 lakh. The flat was to be delivered by June 2013. Though Respondent No. 1/Complainant had paid the entire consideration amount, he was made to wait for delivery of possession and execution of sale deed, despite constant persuasion by Respondent No. 1. The Appellants are obliged to deliver possession of the flat, when the entire consideration amount has been paid. Respondent No. 1/Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat and completion of other formalities, culminating in execution of the sale deed. It clearly indicates deficiency in service on the pa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rt of the Appellants/Opposite Parties and the State Commission has rightly given relief and compensation to Respondent No. 1/Complainant.5. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission. There is no merit in the Appeal. The order of the State Commission is confirmed and the Appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.