Judgment : Dt.28.8.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Sri Prabir Mukherjee, son of late Nirod Mukherjee, resident at 145, Vivekananda Pally, P.O. & P.S.- Berhampur, Dist.- Murshidabad now residing at 1232, Garia Place, Riddhi Apartment, Flat-B4, Kolkata-700 084 against (1) Debasish Sarkar, son of Sri Kamal Sarkar, Partner of Millennium India Construction at 287, Ganguly Bagan, P.O.-Naktala, P.S.- Patuli, at present Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047, OP No.1, (2) Sri Samir Kumar Haldar, son of Late Sudhir Kumar Haldar, partner of Millennium India Construction, 4/45, Vidyasagar, P.O.-Naktala, P.S.- Patuli, at present Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047, OP No.2, and (3) M/s Millennium India Construction, at 23/15, Naktala Road, P.O.-Naktala, P.S.- Patuli, at present Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047, OP No.3, praying for a direction upon the O.P. for refund Rs.5,00,000/- along with bank interest, compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and also a direction upon the OP to pay litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that OP No.1 & 2 are the partners of M/s Millennium India Construction of 23/15, Naktala Road, P.O.- Naktala, P.S.-Patuli, at present Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047.
After verbal discussion with the OPs, Complainant agreed to purchase a flat at the premises No.348/224, N.S.C. Bose Road, at Jadavpur, at present Netaji Nagar, deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by account payee cheque on 15.9.2012 and subsequently made an agreement for sale on 18.9.2012. After signing the said agreement out of Rs.25,50,000/- received Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance to be paid by three installments. The developer will handover the possession within 24 months to the Complainant. Complainant visited the place of construction only to ascertain the progress of construction. But, did not find construction complete. So, Complainant, in the year 2015 asked for the money which he had paid. OPs promised to refund the money and issued two account payee cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- which were dishonoured by the bank for the reason ‘insufficient fund’. After dishonor of the said cheques Complainant sent a notice to the firm on 20.8.2016 for refund of the money which Complainant had paid after a lapse of the notice period, Complainant did not receive the money. Thereafter tripartite meetings took place on 7.12.2016 and on 24.1.2017 and Complainant filed this complaint.
OP did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed a petition for treating the contents of the complaint as affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed. Thereafter the case was heard.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the Complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.5,00,000/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- as interest and compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
Further, on perusal of the Para 4 of the complaint petition, it appears that the value of the flat is Rs.25,50,000/-. Out of this Rs.25,50,000/- Complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- and he filed this case for refund of this Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, it appears that Complainant has filed one cheque dt.29.12.2015 in favour of the Complainant’s amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, Complainant has mentioned in his complaint that OPs issued two cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- in his favour.
At the outset, it appears that the value of the flat was Rs.25,50,000/-. This clearly reveals that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try this case. Further, it appears that Complainant filed only one cheque which is also inconsistent to the allegations made in the complaint petition.
As such, we are of the view that despite the fact that the allegations remained unrebutted and unchallenged, the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
Hence,
ordered
CC/106/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.
