MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the order impugned dated 05.12.2017 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Unit-III, Kolkata  in connection with CC Case being No. 115/2017 wherein the Ld. Trial Commission has been  pleased to allow the instant CC case on  contest against the OP No. 2 and ex parte against OPs No. 1 & 3. Ld. Trial Commission has further been pleased to direct the OPs No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs.75,000/- to the complainant/appellant within two months of the order impugned passed by the Ld. Trial Commission in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. Being aggrieved by  and dissatisfied with the order impugned dated 05.12.2017, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the OP No. 1 and 2 both are land developers/promoters and OP No. 3 is a landlady. OP Nos. 1 & 2 both have entered into a development agreement with the OP No. 3 landlady. Complainant  has also entered into an agreement for sale with the OP Nos. 1 & 2  for purchasing a shop room measuring area 105 sq. ft. covered at the ground floor roadside, South Eastern corner  together with undivided proportionate share of  land along with all easement rights, common facilities and amenities.  The total monetary consideration amounting to Rs.1,05,000/- has been fixed on the strength of the aforesaid agreement.  Out of total consideration, the complainant has already paid Rs.25,000/- at the time of sale agreement on 21.07.2010. Complainant has made further payment to the OPs No. 1 & 2 Rs.20,000/- as second installment and to that effect the OPs have issued acknowledgement receipt along with their signatures in favour of  the complainant. The money receipt dated 14.09.2020 along with revenue stamp has been provided in respect of aforesaid matter to the complainant/appellant. Complainant has further paid Rs.30,000/- as 3^rd installment on 15.12.2020. But in this respect, OP did not provide any money receipt to the  complainant/appellant.
3. The further case is that the OPs made a promise to the complainant/appellant to provide the aforesaid shop room for the purpose of running small business within the stipulated period of time but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged a complaint at the Charu Market Police Station. The matter has already been informed to the KMC on 12.09.2013. A  complaint has been filed against the OPs at the office of Assistant director, Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell for releif, but no satisfactory  relief has been received from the end of the OPs. Having no  other alternative, the complainant/appellant has filed the  instant consumer case before the concerned Trial Commission for getting proper relief as prayed for.
4. OP No. 2 contested this case by filing written version   stating inter alia that the landlady, Angur Bibi  has already revoked/cancelled the power of attorney in farour of  the  developer by way of registration of the deed of revocation/cancellation on 23.04.2012. Since the power of attorney was revoked, the OP No. 2 has been released from his liabilities and the entire responsibility has been taken by OP No. 1 Sk. Fakhruddin. After the revocation of the power of attorney by the OP No. 3 and the subsequent declaration made by the OP No. 1  releasing the OP No. 2 from the responsibilities which clearly reveals that the OP No. 2 Murshid Alam is not liable for any allegations made by the complainant.
5. OP  Nos. 1 & 3 did not contest the aforesaid CC case by filing written version and as such, the case has been heard ex parte against them .
6. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant/complainant has argued that, the Ld. Trial Commission has committed error or mistake in passing the order dated 05.12.2017 as some of the points have not been considered properly. The Ld. Advocate further agitated that the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to pass  an order of refund instead of execution  and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of complainant/appellant in respect of shop room measuring area 105 sq. ft. Ld. Advocate at present has prayed for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of  complainant/appellant and setting aside the order of refund passed by the Ld. Trial Commission.
7. At the time of final hearing, none appears on behalf of  the  Respondents.
8. Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant/complainant at length  and in full.
9. We have  considered the submission of the Ld. Advocate.
10. Hearing has  been concluded.
11. We have carefully perused the petition of complaint  being No. CC/115/2017 filed by the complainant before the Ld. DCDRC Kolkata Unit-III  at Alipore wherefrom it appears to us that the complainant has made a prayer for handing over the subject shop room along with execution and registration of the deed of conveyance and alternatively, made a prayer for refund  of money of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant along with cost and compensation.
12. Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant as well as the OP No. 2 and upon careful perusal of the document, the Ld. Trial Commission has observed that the complainant  has paid Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/-  to the OP  in respect of shop room and to that effect the OP has also provided receipt/acknowledgement to the complainant. But when the complainant has made payment of Rs.30,000/-  to the OPs, the disputes between the parties have been cropped  up and under such circumstances, the OPs did not issue any money receipt in  favour of complainant.
13. After careful observation, it is clear  to us that it is not possible for the complainant to get the shop room from the end of the OPs by way of execution and registration of  deed of conveyance rather it would be better to pass an order of refund along with interest instead of execution and registration of the deed of conveyance.  Be it  mentioned here that the complainant has alternatively prayed for refund of  money along with interest.
14. Consider all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the present position of law and regard being had to the submission of the Ld. Advocate there is no  hesitation to hold that there is no such error, mistake,  wrong  or any illegality in passing the order impugned dated 05.12.2017. Accordingly, we  are constrained to affirm the order impugned dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Trial Commission and dismiss the instant Appeal against  the OPs/Respondents without any order as to costs.
15. The  instant Appeal stands  disposed of as per  above observation.
16. In case of non-compliance of the order by the OPs/Respondents, the complainant/appellant is at liberty to put the order impugned dated 05.12.2017 in execution before the Executing Commission (ld. DCDRC, Unit III, South).
17. Note accordingly.
18. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned  Ld. Trial Commission for compliance and for taking necessary action.