Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.10.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lakh only ) as total claim including compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he is a Doctor and he paid Rs. 1,05,000/- in installments to the opposite party for purchasing flat on the third floor of the apartment having area of 690 Sq. Ft. The aforesaid flat is two room flat with other necessary facilities. The last installment was paid by the complainant on 15.07.1998 and opposite party has promised to complete the construction of the flat.
It is further case of the complainant that despite repeated request by him the opposite party has not given possession of the aforesaid flat. When the opposite party did not completed the flat despite repeated request of the complainant then the complainant has filed a case being complaint case no. 71 of 2005 before District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Buxar. The learned Forum vide order dated 18.11.2015 after hearing the case dismissed the case on the ground that “ the complainant has ulterly failed to prove that cause of action for this case has arisen within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Forum”. From Para – 15 of the aforesaid judgment of the Forum referred above it is mentioned that “ accordingly this complaint case stands dismissed with contest cost”. It appears further that against the aforesaid order of the learned District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Buxar dated 18.11.2005, the complainant had filed an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission, Patna being first appeal no. 835/05 and the Hon’ble Commission in Para – 12 vide order dated 07.01.2009 passed following directions. “ in the result, the appeal is dismissed with an option given to the appellant – complainant to prefer his claim before a proper legal forum and if it is done so the period in between the filing of the complaint and disposal of the present appeal should not be counted while computing the period of limitation.”
In the aforementioned circumstances the complainant has filed this complaint petition, the fact of which has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs in brief.
On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed in Para – 10 of which it is stated “ that it is true that the petitioner has booked a flat in Goverdhan Apartment of which construction was going on from 06.10.1994. It is also true that complainant has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- in installments to the opposite party for flat on third floor in Goverdhan Apartment till 15.07.1996 month before the order to stop the construction work by P.R.D.A. i.e. 20.08.1996.”
It has been admitted by the opposite party that Rs. 80,000/- is remaining with him while Rs. 25,000/- has been paid out of Rs. 1,05,000/-, hence there is no dispute with regard to fact of the cost. However in Para – 8 of written statement the opposite party has asserted following facts. “that the construction work on the aforesaid plot was stopped on 12.08.1996 by deputing police constable by P.R.D.A. & subsequently issued written direction to stop work over said plot on 20.08.1996 on pretext of one to other but finally on question of acquisition.” In support of the aforesaid fact the opposite party has annexed a letter bearing memo no. 1100 dated 27.08.1997 issued under the signature of Nigrani Padadhikari, P.R.D.A. Patna. However no any annexure number has been mentioned in the written statement.
It goes without saying that from perusal of the aforesaid letter it is crystal clear that the work has been stopped by the P.R.D.A.
No rejoinder of the aforesaid written statement has been filed and as such we are not in a position to know the real fact of affairs existing at present.
However as the work has been stopped by Gov. agency i.e. P.R.D.A. hence no direction can be given to the opposite party to hand over the flat after completing the same.
So far return of Rs. 80,000/- is concerned, in Para – 17 of written statement filed by opposite party it is crystal clear that for realization of the aforesaid money the complainant has filed money suit in Civil Court, Patna which is pending. Hence it will not be proper to pass any direction in this respect as the matter is pending before court of competent jurisdiction.
From perusal of Para – 6 of complaint petition it appears the complainant has refused to take some other flat except the flat for which he has given the money to opposite party i.e. third floor of aforesaid apartment.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances we find no option in this case. However the complainant if so like may choose some another flat offered by the opposite party or proceed with the matter if the opposite party is permitted to complete the flat by P.R.D.A. or any state agency or the court of law.
With aforementioned observation this complaint petition stands disposed off.
Member President
