This is a complaint filed by one Arnab Pain, son of Abanindra Pain, Vill : Konngar, P.O. & P.S.-Ghatal, Paschim Midnapore against (1) Arup Mukherjee, son of Anupam Mukherjee, 54/2, Bidhan Pally, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.1, (2) Basudev Dutta, A/1, Poddar Nagar Colony No.2, P.O. & P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.2, (3) Amar Das, A/1, Poddar Nagar Colony No.2, P.O. & P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.3, (4) Susama Chakraborty, A/1, Poddar Nagar Colony No.2, P.O. & P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.4, (5) Tapan Kumar Ghosh, A/1, Poddar Nagar Colony No.2, P.O. & P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.5, praying for refunding the money which Complainant paid, with interest, cost and compensation.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a middle class villager being a serviceman by profession. OP No.1 is the developer and other OPs are owners. On 13.12.2013, Complainant purchased a flat by paying Rs.17,75,000/- to the developer and it was agreed that remaining Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of the registration of the flat. It was also agreed that flat would be completed within 12 months from the date of agreement. After completion of one year i.e. in the middle of January, 2014, Complainant went to the developer for ascertaining as to whether flat was completed. But found that development work was yet to be started. Complainant contacted the developer who promised that he will complete the project within 6 months from that time. After six months, Complainant went to Kolkata and he was surprised to see that the project was kept abandoned with only a few construction works done. Complainant tried to contact the developer. But found his phone was switched off. So, Complainant filed this case.
On the basis of above facts Complaint was admitted. Thereafter several opportunities were given to the Complainant for serving notices. After that paper publication was made and direction was given to OP for filing written version. But, OP did not appear. So the case was heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant has filed copy of agreement for sale and also affidavit-in-chief where the deponent is Arnab Pain who is Complainant of this case.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of the money which he has paid along with interest. That means, he has not stated clearly how much amount he has paid to the OP, developer.
Further, on perusal of the agreement for sale, it appears that it has not been signed by either of the parties on each page. Only on page 21, it appears that developer has signed as Arup Kumar Mukherjee and also the signature of Arnab Pain appears. No receipt issued by the developer is filed to establish that Complainant paid Rs.17,75,000/-. Only on page 21 in handwriting the amount has been written. It appears that payment of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were paid by cheque bearing No.967251, 967252 and 967253 respectively on 3.3.2014, 2.2.2014 and 1.1.2014.
Further, it appears that Rs.13,00,000/- was paid in cash. But no date is mentioned as to when Rs.13,00,000/- was paid.
Furthermore, it appears that Complainant paid such a huge amount without receiving any receipt to that effect. This does not appear believable.
Further, everywhere in the affidavit-in-chief and complaint it is stated that complainant purchased a flat. It is not stated that Complainant entered into agreement for sale. In this back-ground, this complaint appears to be vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, despite the fact that the complaint was heard ex-parte, we are of the view that there is no ground to allow the prayers which in itself is vague because no amount is mentioned even in the claim of legal cost and compensation and the refund of the money.
Hence,
ordered
CC/218/2016 and the same is dismissed on ex-parte.
