This is a complaint made by Caroline Anthony alias Caroline Dawson wife of Noel Anthony, against Debasish Bhattacharya, praying for direction upon the OP to return the advance amount of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest and also direction upon the OP to pay Rs.11,00,968/- deducted by the financial institution from the bank account of the petitioner and EMI transactions with interest and further direction for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, another two lakh for harassment and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that opposite party represented himself as an owner of a 2 BHK flat measuring about 600 sq.ft. lying and situated at plot No.6, Senhati Co-operative Colony, 3^rd fl., Flat No.C-4, P.S.- Behala, Kolkata – 700034. Said OP also represented as one of land-owners of that premises. Complainant in need of accommodation or influenced by the deceitful representation of the OP and induced by the OP to purchase the said flat at a cost of Rs.17,50,000/-, paid on 5.10.2014 Rs.1,10,000/- as advance and another Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.10.2014, on the basis of declaration and acknowledgement of a non-judicial stamp. Basing on that Complainant applied for home loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. Complainant was expecting registration of the flat in her name. On several occasions Complainant visited OP and requested him to make deed of conveyance, but of no use. Having no other alternative, Complainant cancelled the home loan which was sanctioned by Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. For this, Complainant suffered Rs.11,968/-. So, Complainant filed this case against the OP.

            On the basis of the above facts the complaint was admitted and notices were served upon the OP. OP appeared and submitted written version against which Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. But, thereafter OP did not appear.

Decisions with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written complaint.

            On perusal of the hand-written statement of the OP, it appears that the Complainant approached the OP for purchasing a flat  on the 3^rd floor for a price of Rs.26,00,000/-. Further, it is stated that on 29.10.2014 Complainant accepted his offer and handed-over a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as cash and as advance. The said cheque got bounced. On this Complainant told to the OP that she will resolve the dispute. Complainant further went to OP on 18.11.2014 and handed-over a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- and took all necessary document. Further, OP has stated that the said flat is still lying vacant and ready for sale. OP spent Rs.42,000/- for replacement of windows. He is ready to pay back the amount which he has received.

            Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which she has paid.

            On perusal of the facts of written version, it appears that Complainant did not approach the OP with clean hands. No doubt a Xerox copy of the statement written on Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp is filed on behalf of the Complainant which reveals that the Complainant gave Rs.1,00,000/- cheque and Rs.1,00,000/- cash. The cheque No. is mentioned as 528346.

            OP has stated that this cheque number which he received from the Complainant could not be encashed because it bounced and Xerox copy of the documents have been filed to establish the fact of the bouncing of this cheque. As such, it is clear that the Complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands. No doubt OP also did not conduct this case properly. But, it is the duty of the Complainant to establish her claim which appears not according to law. One lawyer’s letter has been issued by Complainant on 26^th May, 2016, stating about advance payment of Rs.2,10,000/- wherein it is stated that Complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- by cash and cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, as earlier stated the cheque bounced.

            OP has also filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has stated the facts which he submitted before this Forum in hand-writing. In his affidavit-in-chief OP has made out a new case which this Forum cannot adjudicate.

            In the circumstances stated above, it appears that since Complainant has not come with clean hand she is not entitled to the relief and the OP’s claim cannot be adjudicated for this complaint for that he made file another complaint.

            In the circumstances, we do not find any ground for any relief to the Complainant.

            Hence ordered

            CC/253/2016 is dismissed on contest.