State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Partha Pratim Roy Choudhury vs M/S Milennium India Construction on 13 January, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/369/2023
PARTHA PRATIM ROY CHOUDHURY
PRESENT ADDRESS - 260, N S C BOSE ROAD, P.S.- NETAJI NAGAR, KOLKATA-
700047,WEST BENGAL.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S MILENNIUM INDIA CONSTRUCTION
PRESENT ADDRESS - 23/15, NAKTALA ROAD, P.S.-NETAJI NAGAR, KOLKATA-700047,
DISTRICT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS,WEST BENGAL.
SRI DEBASISH SARKAR
PRESENT ADDRESS - 287, GANGULY BAGAN, P.S.- NETAJI NAGAR, KOLKATA-700047,
DISTRICT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS,WEST BENGAL.
SRI SAMIR KUMAR HALDER
PRESENT ADDRESS - Son of Late Sudhir Kumar Halder, residing at 4/45 Vidyasagar, P.O.-
Naktala, P.S.- Patuli, Kolkata-700047, District South 24 Parganas.,WEST BENGAL.
SRI ANAMITRA CHAKRABORTY
PRESENT ADDRESS - 237, N S C BOSE ROAD, 'C' BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, P.S.-NETAJI
NAGAR, KOLKATA-700047, DISTRICT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS,WEST BENGAL.
SMT. LAKSHMI CHAKRABORTY
PRESENT ADDRESS - 237, N S C BOSE ROAD, 'C' BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, KOLKATA-
700047, DISTRICT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS,WEST BENGAL.
SRI SATYAJIT CHAKRABORTY
PRESENT ADDRESS - 237, N S C BOSE ROAD, 'C' BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, KOLKATA-
700047, DISTRICT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS,WEST BENGAL.
SRI KARMAJIT CHAKRABORTY
PRESENT ADDRESS - 237, N S C BOSE ROAD, 'C' BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, KOLKATA-
700047, DISTRICT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS,WEST BENGAL.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
SMT. MOUSUMI CHAKRABORTY (Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 13/01/2026
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT
1. This Appeal formidably assails the final Judgment rendered on 26.11.2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (herein after referred to as DCDRC) Kolkata, Unit-III (South), West Bengal. By way of impugned Order, the Opposite Parties were directed to execute and register a formal Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant regarding the subject shop room, alongside a mandate to settle litigation costs of Rs.5000/-, all to be satisfied within the peremptory window of 45 days.
2. The Prologue to the dispute Complainant/Appellant herein being a tenant under the landowners in respect of shop room at premises No.237, N.S.C Bose Road, P.S-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700047 entered into an Agreement for Sale with Opposite Parties/Respondents herein on 15.06.2015, in order to buy one shop room measuring about 760 sq. ft. covered area at consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- only, on condition to surrender his tenancy rights for the purpose of construction of new project at the premises mentioned herein above the land owners/O.P Nos.4 to 7 entrusted the property to the O.P No.1 to 3/Developers, to develop the said project.
3. The land owners executed power of attorney in favour of the Developers.
According to the Agreement for Sale physical possession of the shop room was to be delivered within four months from the date of vacating possession of the tenanted shop. Developers agreed to pay compensation for loss of business during the period of shifting at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month and also liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month on account of delay in delivery of possession of the shop room to the Complainant. Entire consideration money was paid by the Complainant to the Developers. But the Deed of Conveyance was not executed in the favour of the Complainant despite repeated request. Complainant also sent notice through Ld. Advocate for settlement but no response was ever received from the end of the Developers/Opposite Parties.
4. In the result, the complaint was filed alleging unfair trade practice, harassment and deficiency in service against O.Ps with the prayer for direction for execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance, compensation and cost of litigation.
5. O.P Nos. 1 to 3 entered appearance in the case and filed W/V denying all allegations made in the complaint petition contending inter alia, that the Complainant trespasses into the space and created sub-tenancy by inducting one stranger namely Lenskart. It is not out of place to mention that O.P Nos.4 to 7 did not contest the case even and O.P Nos.1 to 3 did not adduce any evidence in this case whereas Complainant adduced evidence alleging inter alia that the Opposite Party delivered physical possession of the shop room to the Complainant in incomplete condition in December 2019 without issuing any possession letter to him.
6. Probative material on record Ld. DCDRC decided the case after analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the Complainant in the following manner:-
"So far as, the prayer for direction of payment of compensation with regard to shift the charges and damages as aforesaid is concerned, we find that no letter of possession as admitted by the Complainant was issued showing the date of delivery of possession to the Complainant. He also did not specify theexact date when he vacated his tenanted room for the purpose of development and when actually he got the possession after construction. In such a situation, we find lack of evidence on the part of the Complainant with regard to his prayer for compensation and damages.
However, the Complainant is entitled to a direction for execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance in his favour and is also entitled to cost of litigation for Rs.5000/-."
7. The core of contention and resolution There is no dispute regarding execution of an Agreement for Sale on 15.06.2015 between the Complainant and the Developers which has been admitted in evidence in course of proceeding of this case.
From Paragraph 6 of the Agreement it appears that after vacating the tenanted portion of the Complainant, Developers will deliver the possession of shop in useful condition within four months from the date of delivery of vacant possession of the executing space and if the Developers fails to deliver the possession to the purchasers within four months, the purchasers is entitled to get damage for the delayed period of two months.
In Para 8 of the agreement it is delineated that the Developers as well as the owners will execute the Deed of Sale in favour of purchaser after making over possession of said shop positively within six months from the date of delivery of the possession.
In Paragraph 18 of the Agreement it is further stated that if the Developers fail to complete and hand over the shop space within agreed period, the Developers shall be bound to pay damage for the delayed period @10,000/- per month.
8. In this case Complainant adduced evidence on affidavit along with the relevant documents whereas Opposite Parties/Developers did not adduce any evidence in support of allegation of trespass.
9. Entire averments of the written complaint were duly corroborated by the evidence on affidavit advanced on behalf of the Complainant. According to the evidence of the Complainant Opposite Parties delivered physical possession of the shop room to him in incomplete condition in December 2019 without issuing any possession letter. This evidence cannot be said to have been controverted by the Opposite Parties by adducing any evidence on affidavit. On the other hand factum of agreement and recent possession of shop room by the Complainant have not been denied.
10. The Consumer Protection Act is beneficial legislation designed to provide a speedy and simple redressal mechanism for Consumer grievances, which is distinct more formal and time consuming process of Civil Court. Therefore, it is needless to mention that the principle of "preponderance of probability"
shall apply instead of principle of "strict proof".
11. From the date of development agreementand date of delivery of possession, it is unequivocally manifested that the Developers have failed to honour the sacred tenets of the Agreement for Sale. By taking plea of trespass O.P Nos.1 to 3/Developers clearly admitted that neither any letter of possession nor in completion certificate was ever handed over to the Complainant/Purchaser.
12. In our considered view, the Ld. District Commission focused myopically upon the complainant's inability to specify the exact date of vacating the tenanted premises or the precise day of delivery, thereby overlooking uncontroverted evidence of the sale agreement and the established month and year of possession; such an approach constitutes a fragmented appreciation of the record, resulting in an unjust denial of the prayer for compensation.
13. In the aforesaid view of the matter, Complainant/Appellant herein is entitled to compensation as well completion certificate in addition to the Order promulgated by the DCDRC.
ORDERED
14. Consequently, the mandate of the DCDRC is recast and distilled into the following terms :-
a) Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of the subject shop room, in accordance with the Agreement for Sale dated
15.06.2015 as well as to provide the Completion Certificate to the Complainant.
b) Opposite Parties are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
c) Opposite Parties are also directed to pay the litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
d) Opposite Parties are directed to comply the aforesaid Order within 08 (Eight) weeks time from the date of this Order.
..................J BIBHAS RANJAN DE PRESIDENT ..................
MRIDULA ROY MEMBER