State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dipak Kumar Bandopadhyay vs M/S Goveia Developers & Others on 12 January, 2026
SC/30/FA/101/2018
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of First Appeal No. 101 of 2018 in Consumer
Complaint 77 of 2017.
Before: Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President
Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member
Mr. Dipak Kumar Ba ndopadhyay,
r/o 9, Sackville Garden, Leicester, LE2 3TH,
England, United Kingdom,
Represented through his const. Attorney,
Mrs. Neeta U. Kamat,
r/o UT-A, Vollan Homes,
Merces, Goa. .....Appellant
V.
M/s. Goveia Developers,
A partnership duly registered,
With its registered office at Studio No.51,
Goveia Holiday Homes,
Aradi, Condolim, Bardez-Goa. .....Respondent-1
Represented herein by its partners:
Mr. Ludovico Sagrado Goveia .....Respondent-1(a)
Mr. Francisco Hugo Goveia .....Respondent-1(b)
Mrs. Marilyn Agasta Sabrina Judith
Soares Fernandes Goveia .....Respondent-1(c)
All above residents of
H. No. 642, Ponsulem Ward,
Colvale, Bardez-Goa.
1
Mr. Akbar Agha. .....Respondent-2
Mrs. Dilshad Khatoon Agha. .....Respondent-3
Both resident of
F-7, Gokul Apartments,
Nandanvan Complex,
Opp. Veternary Clinic,
Tonca, Panaji-Goa.
Adv. Shri N. G. Kamat present for Appellant.
Adv. Shri Sachin Desai present for Respondent-1
Other Respondents absent.
DATE: 12/01/2026
JUDGMENT
[per Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President]
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 28/09/2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa, (The 'District Commission' for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 77/2017. The Appellant was the Complainant and the Respondents were the Opposite Parties ('OPs' for short) in the said Complaint. The Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Complaint.
2. The Complainant had filed the said complaint praying therein to direct the OPs-1, 2 & 3 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant with respect to the said Villa without any clause of payment of 2% of cost as transfer fee on resale of the said Villa; to direct OP-1 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Complainant for neglect and delay in execution of Sale Deed of the said Villa as a consequence of which the 2 Complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony; to direct OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- towards the costs incurred on travelling to Goa, on four occasions and returning back without execution of the Sale Deed; to direct the OPs to bear the difference on stamp duty to the extent of its increase in stamp duty from April 2015 vide Government of Goa Notification, as the delay in execution of Sale Deed; to direct OPs not to levy the unilaterally hiked maintenance fee.
3. The case of the Complainant, in short, is as follows:-
That in terms of an Agreement for Construction-cum- Sale dated 29/11/2006, duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Bardez at Mapusa, executed between the OP-1 and the Complainant, the Complainant agreed to purchase a Villa to be constructed in the village of Candolim, Goa together with the proportionate area for a total consideration amount of Rs.41,00,000/- which included the cost of proportionate land, to be constructed by OP-1 which is owned by OPs-2 & 3. The possession of the said Villa was agreed to hand over on or before 31/12/2007 with extension of 6 months alongwith Occupancy Certificate, Water & Power Installation. The OP-1 also agreed to execute Sale Deed with respect to the said Villa on the date of handing over the possession. The possession of the said Villa was handed over to the Complainant only in December 2008 but without execution of a Sale Deed. The Complainant stated that he is a resident of England and he was communicating with OP-1 via emails and telephone but OP-1 neglected to the same. He was constrained to travel to Goa around 4 times since 2012 for execution of the Sale Deed, but every time the OP-1 postponed the execution on one or other pretext, thereby putting the 3 Complainant to financial loss incurred by him by travelling to Goa. On every occasion he had to spend around Rs.58,000/- only towards his air travel from U.K. on 06/05/2013, OP-1 sent him draft of Sale Deed by email but inserted a prerequisite clause in the said draft of payment of 2% of cost as transfer fees at the time of resale of said Villa, which was totally unfair.
Also OPs-2 & 3 were not reflected as 'Vendors/Transferors'. The Complainant requested OP- 1 to remove the clause of payment of 2% and also to add OPs-2 & 3. But the OP-1 neglected to his request.
Therefore the complaint.
4. The Complainant relied upon the Agreement for Construction-cum-Sale dated 29/11/2006, specific Power of Attorney dated 25/10/2013, Official Gazette dated 02/04/2015 & 31/05/2013, Email dated 06/02/2014 alongwith the Notice dated 06/05/2013 alongwith the draft, several emails, Travel Visa, Letter dated 03/07/2013 and 17/07/2013 from Adv. Subhalakshmi Naik.
5. The OP filed their Written Version and denied the allegations made against them. The case of the OP in short is as under:
That the Sale Deed was not executed because of not furnishing the PIO/OCI documents by the Complainant and non acceptance of the standard draft of the Sale Deed as furnished to the Complainant. Also the PAN Cards were not furnished by OPs-2 & 3. The OP-1 denied that the Complainant was communicating on email with them and the Complainant travelled to Goa four times since 2012 for execution of Sale Deed, and each time OP-1 postponed the execution of Sale Deed. The OP-1 further stated that the Complainant had no 4 agreement with OPs-2 & 3 and as such their inclusion in the Deed was not warranted. Also as a party to the Deed their PAN Cards were required. But due to having lost in a fire in their flat their names could not be included. It was verbally conveyed to the Legal Advisor of the Complainant that at a later point in time after the PAN Card of the OPs-2 & 3 were obtained a Rectification Deed could be executed. The Complainant and his Legal Advisors chose to be stubborn and adamant for no valid reason. The OP-1 had a clear understanding with OPs-2 & 3 that they could develop the land and enter into agreements with prospective purchasers. The OP-1 also stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the said issue that would if at all arise between the parties be a civil issue. They prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The OP relied upon draft Sale Deed.
7. The Complainant filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence. The OP also filed their Affidavit-in-Evidence. Both the parties filed Written Arguments before District Commission.
8. Vide the Impugned Judgment and Order, the District Commission observed that the Complainant is also responsible for the delay on account of non-production of necessary documents or his OCI Card or evidence with regard to his status of PIO. The OP-1 cannot be held totally liable for delay in execution of Sale Deed. The complaint has been dismissed. The Complainant is aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment and Order.
9. Records and Proceedings of CC/77/2017 were called for. Both the parties have filed Written Arguments. We have also heard Oral Arguments. We have gone through the entire material on record.
510. At the time of final arguments, both the parties decided to settle the matter by executing the Sale Deed.
11. In view of the same, the parties have been given the opportunity to settle the matter.
12. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The Impugned Judgement and Order dated 28/09/2018 of District Commission, South is quashed and set aside. iii. The OP-1 is directed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant.
iv. The Assistant Registrar of District Commission, South is directed to sign the Sale Deed on behalf of L.R.'s of Respondent-2 and on behalf of Respondent-3.
Pronounced in Open Court.
Proceedings in the matter stands closed.
[Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale] Officiating President [Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves] Member SN 6