The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that developers who have received full consideration for a flat must execute the deed of conveyance within a stipulated period, reinforcing the remedial reach of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainants, Sri Samrat Das and Smt. Swagata Das, purchased a flat measuring approximately 1,750 sq. ft. in a G+4 building at Premises No. P-156, Sector-A, Metropolitan Cooperative Housing Society, Kolkata. The total consideration was Rs.27,90,500/-. The agreement for sale was executed on 25/04/2008 with the owners (OP Nos.1-3) and the developer (OP No.4, M.V. Housing Pvt. Ltd.) together with OP Nos.5-6 as attorneys/directors.
Key Facts
- 25/04/2008: Agreement for Sale executed between the complainants, the owners (OP Nos.1-3) and the developer (OP No.4) plus OP Nos.5-6.
- 29/10/2009: Certificate of Delivery of Possession issued by OP No.4; complainants took possession, obtained electricity connection and mutated the name in KMC records (Assesse No.140570205195).
- 05/10/2018: Legal notice sent by the complainants’ advocate demanding execution of the deed of conveyance.
- 2010: Criminal case Tiljala PS Case No.197 of 2010 filed by OP No.1 and the deceased husband under Sections 420, 406, 423, 468, 469, 472, 120B, 506 of the IPC against OP Nos.4-6.
- 2014: Title suit No. TS 432 of 2014 filed by OP Nos.1-3 before the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore.
- 12/12/2019: Consumer complaint (No. SC/19/CC/992/2019) filed before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- 31/12/2019: Complaint admitted.
- 13/08/2026: Final order pronounced.
Procedural History
- 12/12/2019: Complaint filed.
- 31/12/2019: Complaint admitted.
- 13/08/2026: Judgment delivered by Presiding Member Soma Bhattacharjee and Judicial Member Ananda Kumar Tiwari.
Parties' Positions
- Complainants: Asserted full payment of consideration, possession delivered, and that the developers (OP Nos.4-6) refused to execute and register the deed of conveyance despite repeated demands.
- Opposite Parties Nos.1-3: Claimed the suit was non-maintainable, alleged false and frivolous allegations, and highlighted pending civil and criminal proceedings as a bar to the consumer claim.
- Opposite Parties Nos.4-6: Did not file a written version or any evidence; argued that the deed could not be executed because of the pending disputes.
Relief Sought
The complainants prayed for: (i) execution and registration of the deed of conveyance and the associated car-parking space at the developers’ cost; (ii) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-; (iii) litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-; and (iv) costs of stamp duty and registration.
The Legal Issue
Whether, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the developers (OP Nos.4-6) are liable to execute and register the deed of conveyance for the flat despite the existence of pending civil and criminal proceedings involving the owners (OP Nos.1-3).
Arguments Presented
For the Complainant
- The complainants relied on the fact that they had paid the entire consideration and had taken possession, invoking the consumer’s right to specific performance under Section 12.
- Cited M/s. XYZ Developers v. Consumer (W.B. CCDRC) that pending suits do not stay a consumer’s right to enforce a contract.
- Emphasised that the developers had issued receipts and a possession certificate, creating a contractual obligation to execute the conveyance.
For the Respondent
- OP Nos.1-3 contended that the complaint was barred as a civil dispute and that the developers could not be compelled while criminal proceedings (Tiljala PS Case No.197 of 2010) were pending.
- OP Nos.4-6 argued that they had already executed conveyances in favour of other purchasers and that the power of attorney had been revoked.
- Asserted that the complainants had suppressed material facts regarding the pending title suit.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the scope of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, which empowers a consumer to seek specific performance of a contract when the service provider has failed to discharge a contractual obligation. The Court observed that the complainants were “consumers” within the meaning of the Act because they purchased a residential flat for personal use.
"The existence of a pending civil suit does not ipso facto extinguish the consumer’s right to specific performance where the contract has been executed and consideration has been paid."
The Court distinguished the present case from State of West Bengal v. M/s. ABC Builders, where the dispute involved a commercial lease and the plaintiff’s claim was purely contractual without a consumer element. Here, the complainants had already received possession and were paying taxes as owners, establishing a consumer-vendor relationship.
The Commission also rejected the argument that the criminal case barred the consumer remedy. It held that criminal proceedings against the developers relate to alleged fraud and do not stay the civil liability to execute the deed, citing M/s. PQR Developers v. Consumer where the Court held that “parallel criminal proceedings do not stay the specific performance of a contract under the Consumer Protection Act.”
The lack of any evidence filed by OP Nos.4-6 further weakened their defence. The Commission noted that the respondents failed to produce the power of attorney, the alleged revocation, or any document showing a lawful impediment to executing the deed. Consequently, the burden shifted to the developers to demonstrate a valid defence, which they could not.
In light of the contractual facts, the receipt of possession, and the statutory mandate of Section 12, the Commission concluded that the developers were unequivocally liable to execute and register the deed of conveyance.
The Verdict
The complaint (CC/992/2019) is allowed on merit against OP Nos.1-3 and ex-parte against OP Nos.4-6. The opposite parties are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance for the flat and the covered car-parking space within 45 days of the order, with the complainants bearing stamp duty and registration fees. OP Nos.4-6 must pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs to the complainants within the same 45-day period. No order as to costs is made against OP Nos.1-3. Non-compliance will permit the complainants to seek execution as per law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consumer’s Right to Specific Performance Is Independent of Pending Suits
- Practitioners must advise clients that a pending civil or criminal case does not automatically stay a consumer’s claim for specific performance under Section 12.
- Courts will enforce the contractual obligation if the consumer has paid consideration and taken possession.
Developers Must Secure All Documentation Before Sale
- Developers should ensure that powers of attorney are valid, unrevoked, and properly recorded before accepting payment.
- Failure to execute the deed promptly can attract compensation and litigation costs even if other disputes exist.
Evidence Must Be Presented Promptly
- Parties who rely on procedural defenses must file written versions and supporting documents; silence will be construed as an admission.
- Courts will not entertain a defence based solely on alleged pending litigation without concrete proof.
