State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajib Ch.Das vs S.B.D. Construction & Another on 13 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/693/2019
Rajib Ch.Das
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Sagar Chandra Das, Vill. - Garh Kamalpur, P.O. & P.S. -
Mahishadal, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 628(W.B.),WEST BENGAL.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
S.B.D. Construction & Another
PRESENT ADDRESS - Rep. by Papiya Sau, Vill. Salgachia(Ward no. 17, Tamluk Municipality),
P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 636.,WEST BENGAL.
Smt. Papiya Sau
PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o Sri Priti Ranjan Sahoo & D/o Sri Madhusudan Sahoo, Vill.
Chakkamina(Ward no. 17, Tamluk Municipality), P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin
- 721 636.,WEST BENGAL.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Salil Kumar Maity, Pinki Saha (Advocate)
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
Mr. Subhas Jana (Advocate)
Mr. Subhas Jana (Advocate)
DATED: 13/03/2026
ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT
1. We are dealing with an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Rajib Chandra Das/Complainant seeking a decree directing the Opposite Party to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the subject flat along with a decree directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.5 lakhs for deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.1 lakh.
Complainant's Case :
2. The distilled essence of the matter is that on 29.06.2017 there was an agreement for sale between complainant and opposite parties/developer qua the flat situated on the 4th floor (northeast facing) of the building namely RADHIKA APARTMENT constructed by the Opposite Party/Developer mentioned in the schedule to the Consumer Complaint.
3. At the time of agreement for sale, booking amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid vide Cheque No.905969 dated 29.06.2017 maintained under State Bank of India, Tamluk Railway Station Branch, out of total consideration price of Rs.30,49,200/-. In terms of agreement, balance amount was to be paid on or before registration of the deed of conveyance within 24 months from the date of signing agreement.
4. Specific case of the complainant is that though agreement for sale contained a period of 24 months for delivery of the flat, it was mutually agreed that the flat would be transferred and delivered by December, 2017. For that reason, complainant obtained a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- as advance from General Provident Fund on 08.08.2017 and applied for home loan from State Bank of India on 01.11.2017. All on a sudden, Opposite Parties/Developer refused to execute and deliver the said flat. As a result, complainant filed a complaint on 06.12.2017 before Assistant Director, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Consumer Affairs Department at Kolkata against Opposite Parties who filed a written version there and ultimately, mediation process failed.
5. The matter was informed to the Bank on 16.03.2018 but the Bank replied that the time limit for loan had been expired.
6. Thereafter complainant requested the opposite parties to deliver the flat in question after receiving the balance amount but the opposite parties refused to do so and lastly on 05.08.2019, complainant again requested the opposite parties to extend the time limit of the agreement. Opposite parties/Developer disclosed that she found a new customer to purchase the flat.
7. On 03.08.2019, opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant along with bank draft amounting to Rs.1 lakh.
8. The instant complaint was lodged on 4th September, 2019 before this Commission with the prayers mentioned in paragraph - 1.
Case of the Opposite Parties:
9. Opposite Parties entered into the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the consumer complaint contending inter alia that the complainant paid only Rs.1 lakh at the time of execution of the agreement for sale and thereafter the complainant paid nothing till the date of expiry of the said agreement on 29.06.2019.
10. After execution of the sale agreement, complainant never approached the opposite parties for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance after making payment of balance amount till the date of expiry of the said agreement i.e., 28.06.2017.
11. Instead of approaching the opposite parties, complainant filed one complaint before Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal with false allegation against the opposite parties for not making delivery of possession of the said flat within December, 2017.
12. Opposite parties waited for few months even after expiry of validity period of the said agreement and thereafter refunded the earnest money of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant.
ARGUMENT
13. Both the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to the case participated in the argument.
14. Mr. Shyamvar Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant heavily relied on his plea of verbal assurance by the opposite parties/developer to deliver the flat within December, 2017. Mr. Deb has tried to make this Commission understand that the complainant approached the Bank for loan which was subsequently sanctioned and also obtained advance from his General Provident Fund, with a view to obtain the possession of the flat and registration of deed of conveyance within December, 2017.
15. Mr. Deb has referred to letters communicated between the parties and contended that in spite of several requests, neither the opposite parties extended the time limit of the agreement for sale and nor delivered the possession within December, 2017 for which complainant had to approach the Assistant Director, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal.
16. Per contra, Mr. Indranil Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has contended that prior to expiry of the stipulated time for delivery of possession, the complainant approached the Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal with the false allegation of verbal assurance of delivery of possession within December, 2017.
17. Mr. Nandi has referred to the various clauses of the agreement as well as evidence on record in support of his contention. Mr. Nandi also referred the Banker's letter dated 20.03.2018 addressed to the complainant and tried to establish that though loan was sanctioned by the Bank on 06.11.2017 but the complainant did not approach the bank for documentation and disbursement of the loan within the validity period and as a result, sanction expired.
18. Mr. Nandi also relied on the questionnaire filed by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and also reply to the questionnaire filed by the opposite party no.1 & 2 in support of his contention.
19. Before parting with, Mr. Nandi has submitted that there is no evidence on record that complainant ever approached to the opposite parties/developer with a proposal for payment of balance amount and for possession of the flat prior to expiry of the 24 months from the date of execution of agreement for sale.
20. In support of his ultimate contention, Mr. Nandi relied on a case of Alagammal and others vs. Genesan and another reported in (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 232.
DECISION
21. At the very outset, we would like to reproduce the principle enunciated in following paragraphs of Alagammal (Supra) :-
"26. Having considered the matter, this Court finds that the judgment impugned cannot be sustained. The moot question revolves around whether the agreement dated 22-11-1990 discloses a fixed time-frame for making payment in full by the respondents that is, in terms of the recitals in the agreement for sale executed by Appellant 1 in favour of the respondents. The admitted position is that the time indicated in the agreement was six months from 22-11-1990 i.e., till 21-5-1991 and as per the legal notice dated 18-11- 1997 sent by the respondents to the appellants, only Rs.7000 was paid within the time stipulated.
28. At this juncture, the Court would indicate that within six months there existed the onus of paying the entire balance amount of Rs.18,000 by Respondent 1 to Appellant 1. It is not the case of the respondents that they had even offered to pay the remaining/balance amount before the expiry of the six-month period. Thus, payment of Rs.3000 only out of Rs.21,000 having been made, or at best Rs.7000 out of Rs.21,000, which is the amount indicated in the legal notice sent by the respondents to the appellants, the obvious import would be that the respondents had not complied with their obligation under the agreement within the six-month period.
29. Pausing here, it is notable that Appellant 1 having accepted payment of Rs.1000 on 21-4-1997 i.e., after Appellant 1 had executed a sale deed in favour of the Appellant 7 on 5-11-1997, coupled with the fact that the forensic expert found the two thumb impressions purportedly acknowledging payment after the expiry of the time fixed not matching the fingerprints of Appellant 1 is clearly indicative that time having not been extended, no enforceable right accrued to the respondents for getting relief under the 1963 Act.
33. Another important aspect that the Court is expected to consider is the fact that Appellant 7 in whose favour there was a sale deed with regard to the suit premises, much prior to issuance of any legal notice and the institution of the suit in question and that no relief had been sought for cancellation of such sale deed, a suit for specific performance for execution of sale deed qua the very same property could not be maintained. The matter becomes worse for the respondents since such relief was also not sought even at the first appeal stage nor at the second appeal stage, despite the law permitting and providing for such course of action. Even the legal notice dated 18-11-1997 has been issued after almost seven months from the alleged last payment of Rs.1000, as claimed by the respondents to have been made on 21-4-1997.
35. The ratio laid down in K.S. Vidyanadam2 which had a similar factual matrix squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the issue that time was the essence of contract and even if time is not the essence of the agreement, in the event that there is no reference of any existence of any tenant in the building and it is mentioned that within a period of six months, the plaintiffs should purchase the stamp paper and pay the balance consideration whereupon the defendants will execute the sale deed, there is not a single letter or notice from the plaintiffs to the defendants calling upon them to the tenant to vacate and get the sale deed executed within time. Further, the legal notice was issued after two-and-a-half years from expiry of the time period in K.S. Vidyanadam2 , whereas in the present case, the legal notice has been issued after more that six-and-a-half years."
22. From the tapestry of the pleadings and the crucible of evidence, these undisputed truths have surfaced as follows :-
i) An undisputed nexus exists between the parties evidenced by a formal agreement for the sale of the subject flat.
ii) Per the contractual stipulations, the subject flat was to deliver into the complainant's possession within a 24 months gestation period, contingent upon the full satisfaction of the outstanding consideration.
iii) Scarcely, 6 months into the term, the complainant sought the intervention of Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Consumer Affairs Department, Govt.
of West Bengal, grounding his payer for possession upon alleged subsequent oral covenants - assertions which the opposing parties have categorically refuted.
iv) Upon the expiration of the stipulated twenty-four-month horizon, the complainant remained ill-prepared and lacked the requisite liquidity to discharge the balance amount.
v) The financial architecture intended to support the acquisition crumbled as the bank formally revoked the loan sanction previously extended to the complaint.
23. The collective weight of the evidence on record compels the singular conclusion that the complainant faltered in his contractual obligation, failing to demonstrate the requisite readiness to remit the balance consideration for the delivery of the property from the formal execution or registration of the deed of conveyance.
24. Upon a harmonious reading of the facts and the binding precedents of the Alagammal (Supra), we left with no choice but to pronounce the dismissal of the present consumer complaint.
25. In the result, the Consumer Complaint stands dismissed.
26. All connected pending applications, if there be any, stand disposed of being infructuous.
27. Let the copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
..................J BIBHAS RANJAN DE PRESIDENT ..................
MRIDULA ROY MEMBER