State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nemai Chandra Hazra & Anr. vs M/S. Sulakshna Construction & Ors. on 25 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/12/2019
Nemai Chandra Hazra & Anr.
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Bhakta Bhusan Hazra, 25A, M.L.B. Road, P.O. & P.S. - Bally, Dist.
Howrah, Pin - 711 201. ,WEST BENGAL.
Smt. Shanti Hazra
PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o Sri Nemai Chandra Hazra, 25A, M.L.B. Road, P.O. & P.S. - Bally,
Dist. Howrah, Pin - 711 201. ,WEST BENGAL.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s. Sulakshna Construction & Ors.
PRESENT ADDRESS - 1, Purbachal C.R. Das Road, P.S. - Kasba, Kolkata - 700 078. ,WEST
BENGAL.
Smt. Shyama Adhikari, partner, M/s. Sulakshna Construction
PRESENT ADDRESS - 1, Purbachal C.R. Das Road, P.S. - Kasba, Kolkata - 700 078. ,WEST
BENGAL.
Smt. Sova Konar, partner, M/s. Sulakshna Construction
PRESENT ADDRESS - 26A, Keyatala Lane, P.S. - Lake, Kolkata - 700 029. ,WEST BENGAL.
Moumita Roy, Landowner
PRESENT ADDRESS - D/o Sri Biswanath Roy, 5A, Fern Place, P.S. - Gariahat, Kolkata - 700
019. ,WEST BENGAL.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Mr. Partha Sarathi Kashyapi, Mr. Arindam Peyada (Advocate)
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
Mr. Anindya Chakraborty (Advocate)
Mr. Anindya Chakraborty (Advocate)
Mr. Anindya Chakraborty (Advocate)
DATED: 25/07/2025
ORDER
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER The instant petition of complaint is filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the above named Complainants alleging deficiency in providing housing construction service on the part of the above named Opposite Parties (referred as OP/s hereinafter).
Case of the Complainants in brief is that the Complainants in order to find a suitable accommodation of their own came to contact with the OP no. 1 a partnership firm and having had discussion with its partner they have decided to purchase a flat measuring about 795 sq. ft. superbuilt up area, being flat no. D 2 in the 1st floor of a building being constructed by the OP/Developers along with an open car parking space having 120 sq. ft. area at the premises no. 776 Purbachal Main Road, Ward No. 106, P.S.-Kasba, Kolkata-700078, and accordingly, an Agreement for Sale was executed by and between the Developers and the Complainants on 25.08.2017 in respect of purchasing of the said flat along with car parking space at a consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-. The Complainants specifically mentioned that they had paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the Developers prior to the execution of the said Agreement for Sale and, thereafter, on the date of execution of the Agreement for Sale the Complainants paid balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the Developers and thus, made payment of entire amount of consideration to the partners of the OP/Developers firm. It is also stated by the Complainants that after execution of the said Agreement for Sale the Developers delivered physical possession of the said flat to the Complainants though the flat was not complete in all respect but the then prevailing situation compelled the Complainants to accept possession of the incomplete flat and to reside therein. The Complainants have specifically alleged that though the Developers had been assuring them of causing execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat and the car parking space in favour of them from the date of execution of Agreement for Sale but, in reality, they did nothing to that effect in spite of being requested by the Complainants on several occasions. It is further alleged by the Complainants that the Developers have not completed the construction work so far and, therefore, the completion certificate has not been issued by the Municipal Authority so far resultant effect of which no connection of electricity and of water supply has been provided to the Complainants' flat. The Complainants, thereafter, served legal notice dated 30.11.2018 through their Ld. Advocate in reply to which the Developer informed them through their Ld. Advocate`s letter dated 10.12.2018 that M/s. Sulakshana Construction (OP no. 1 herein) had shut down the said construction business in 2012. Accordingly, the Complainants have prayed for direction upon the OPs to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the case flat in favour of them and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainants towards compensation and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants as litigation cost.
The OPs contested the case by filing W/V denying and disputing all material allegations levelled against them stating, inter alia, that the OPs never executed the alleged Agreement for Sale dated 28.08.2017 in favour of the Complainants and, as such, the Complainants are not consumers under the OPs and, moreover, the Complainants are not entitled to get the completion certificate of the building in question as they are not the owners of the case flat. Accordingly, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with exemplary cost.
The Complainants adopted the petition of complaint as their evidence on affidavit. The OP nos. 1 & 2 and the OP no. 3 filed evidence on affidavit separately but those containing are almost similar statements, inter alia, that the Complainants did not make payment at all and the receipt of the consideration amount of Rs.21,00,000/- under heading "Memo of Consideration" allegedly issued by the OP no. 2 namely Mrs. Shyama Adhikary is forged one and the same is apparent from her signature shown under the receipt because the name of Mrs. Shyama Adhikary is spelt with a "Y" in the surname "Adhikary" but in the said documents her name is spelt as "Adhikari" with the letter "i" instead of letter "y" in the surname "Adhikary".
Both sides cross-examined each other in form of questionnaire followed by reply respectively.
Both sides filed brief notes of argument.
In course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that an Agreement for Sale executed on 25.08.2007 in respect of the case flat and car parking space. It is stated by the Complainant that by the date of execution of the Agreement for Sale entire consideration amount has been paid. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that possession of the said flat, though in incomplete condition, along with car parking space was delivered to him. But, till date the Deed of Conveyance has not been executed or registered. Ld. Advocate for the Complainants has further submitted that vide letter dated 10.12.2018 the OPs informed them through their Ld. Advocate that the OP no. 1 a partnership company was dissolved in 2012. However, in cross examination the OPs replied that they did not inform anyone except their Advocate regarding shut down of the said partnership firm. Moreover, even after the alleged shut down the OP received the amount. In support of their contention Ld. Advocate for the Complainants has annexed copy of i) Agreement for Sale executed on 25.08.2017 and notarised on 28.08.2017, ii) Copy of Development Agreement dated 19.06.2006 executed by and between the OP no. 4/Land Owner and the OP nos. 1, 2 & 3/Developers iii) Letter dated 30.11.2018 issued by Ld. Advocate Mr. Arindam Peyada on behalf of the Complainants to the OPs iv) Letter dated 10.12.2018 issued by Ld. Advocate Mr. Koushik Majumder on behalf of the OPs to the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants. Ld. Advocate for the OPs submitted that the OPs did not get any amount for consideration and the receipt, allegedly issued by OP no. 2 cannot be considered as genuine one since another partner Smt. Sova Konar did not put her signature on the said paper. Ld. Advocate for the OPs further stated that signature as appears on the paper receiving the consideration amount is not genuine one. Ld. Advocate for the OPs furthermore, submitted that it is not permissible to pay Rs.8,00,000/- in cash as per provision of the I.T. Act. However, the Complainants claimed to have paid Rs.8,00,000/- in cash.
The OPs annexed copies of i) the last page of the Agreement for Sale i.e. memo of consideration, ii) clarification in respect of section 269 ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.07.2017 issued by Ministry of Finance, Govt of India iii) of Deed of Sale executed on 03.03.2017 in favour of one Sri Madhusudan Das.
Having heard submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the documents on record it appears that the Complainants have stated that they have entered into an Agreement for Sale with the OP/Developers at an agreed consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- and paid the said amount entirely which has been received as well as acknowledged by the OP no. 2 on behalf of the OP/Developers but in spite of receiving the entire amount of consideration and entering into an Agreement for Sale the OP/Developers did not take any initiative to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of them. On the other hand, the OP/Developers denied the same on the grounds that no receipt was issued on behalf of the OP no. 2 and the document which is produced on behalf of the Complainant allegedly containing the signature of the OP no. 2 is forged one since the surname of the OP no. 2 has been misspelt.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
1. Whether the Complainants are the consumer under the OPs.
2. Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OPs in providing service.
3. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS:
All points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision:
It appears from the record that the Complainants entered into an Agreement for Sale executed on 25.08.2017 notarised on 28.08.2017 which contains signature of the OP no. 2, one of the partners of OP no. 1. The OP/Developers though stated in their W/V and also in evidence on affidavit that they never entered into such Agreement for Sale with the Complainants but they did not challenge the documents praying for opinion of handwriting of expert etc. Similarly, the memo of consideration of receiving Rs.21,00,000/- as acknowledged by the OP no. 2 was denied by the OP/Developers stating that the signature as forged one and they had filed an Interlocutory Application being no. IA/662/2019 praying for appointment of handwriting expert from Directorate of the Department of Forensic Science, Central Govt., 30, Gora Chand Road, Kol-14. But subsequently, the said application was "not pressed" by the OP no. 2 . Hence, the denial/allegation as to forged signature as raised by the OP/Developments is not sustainable at all. Moreover, as regards the issues of spelling of surname of OP no. 2 as raised by the OP/Developers is not also sustainable because the copy of Development Agreement dated 19.06.2006 executed by and between the OP no. 4 and OP nos. 1to 3 also shows that the OP no. 2 put her signature therein as "Shyama Adhikari". As regards denial of entering into an Agreement for Sale the OP/Developers vide letter dated 10.12.2018 informed the Complainants that the OP no. 1 /Partnership Company "M/s. Sulakshana Construction had shut down the said construction business in the year 2012. Since then there were no business transaction in respect of the said construction firm". However, being interrogated by the Complainants in course of cross examination the OP/Developers replied that they informed the event of "Shut down" to none except their Advocate. Hence, the said contention cannot be taken into consideration. Further, as regards, the issue of putting signature by the OP no. 2 alone in the acknowledgement of memo of consideration since other partners is not endorsed the same is not worth enough to be taken into consideration. It is held that on behalf of a partnership company either of the partner can acknowledge such payment since , in general, each partner is liable for the actions of other partners within the scope of partnership business.
Considering the above mentioned situation we can safely at a conclusion that the OP/Developers could not substantiate their claim regarding non-execution of the Agreement for Sale as well as receiving Rs.21,00,000/- paid by the Complainants towards consideration.
It is, therefore, evident that the Complainants have become consumer under the OPs by hiring housing construction service making consideration.
The Complainants entered into Agreement for Sale with the OP/Developers under certain terms and conditions including registration of the case property. But, in reality, the OP/developers failed and neglected to cause registration and completion of the case property and also to deliver completion certificate after obtaining the same from the appropriate municipal authorities which is considered as deficiency on the part of the OP/Developers.
It is also held that the Complainants have suffered a lot for non-delivery of the completion certificate in respect of the building they have constructed for which they are liable to pay compensation to the Complainants.
Further, the negligent act on the part of the OP/Developers prompted the Complainants to file the instant case in order to get their grievances redressed and, therefore, the OPs are liable to pay cost of litigation.
Point nos. 1, 2 & 3 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the consumer complaint case succeeds.
Hence, ORDERED That the Consumer Complaint Case being no. CC/12/2019 is allowed in part on contest with cost.
The OP nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants in respect of the case property within one month from the date of this order.
The OP nos. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainants jointly or severally within one month from the date of this order i.d. the said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. to be accrued on the said amount on and from the date of default till realization thereof in full.
The OP nos. 1, 2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants towards cost of litigation within the aforesaid period.
Thus, the Consumer Complaint case being no. CC/12/2019 is disposed of.
Consequently, the Interlocutory Application being no. IA/957/2022 stands disposed of.
..................J MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT ..................
MRIDULA ROY MEMBER