Judgment : Dt.11.10.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Smt. Rajkumari A. Raitani, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar C. Raitani of 24/2, 8A, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata, presently residing at 63/5, Pimple Gurav Mayurnagari, D-502, Pune-411061, being represented by her husband and power of attorney holder Sri Ashok Kumar C. Raitani against G.B. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., being represented by Sri Tapash Ghosh, Managing Director, registered office at 59, Banamali Naskar Road, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 060, OP No.1, Sri Devendra Kumar Bangur, OP No.2, Smt. Monorama Bangur, OP No.3, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, OP No.4, Smt. Kamal Bangur, OP No.5, Smt. Vijaya Kumara Bangur, OP No.6, being represented by their power of attorney holder, Gopal Bangur, OP No.7 and Sri Nand Gopal Bangur, of 199, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700 006, OP No.8, praying for a direction upon the O.P.s to register the flat in question in favour of the Complainant and a direction upon the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pass any other order which this Forum may deem fit.
Facts in brief are that Complainant had a personal need of residential accommodation and wanted to purchase a flat. Complainant contacted the OPs and after being satisfied over the terms and conditions entered into an agreement for sale of a self contained flat for a super built up area of 500 sq.ft., containing four bed rooms, one dining, two toilets, one kitchen, one verandah on the fourth floor at a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. Complainant paid the booking amount and made all other payments as required by the OP No.1. Complainant already made payment of entire consideration money to the OPs even for extra works. But, OPs failed and neglected to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant. Due to serious non-cooperation and refusal on the part of the OPs the flat could not be registered. Complainant paid total consideration money, OPs handed over possession to the Complainant. Due to non-registration of the flat, Complainant suffered loss. Having no other alternative, Complainant issued letter to OP No.1 on 3.12.2010, 14.7.2016. But, OP No.1 did not make the registration deed. So, Complainant filed this case.
OPs No.2 to 6 and 8, except OP No.7 filed written statement and denied the allegations of the complaint. OPs have stated that they executed a power of attorney on 21.9.1980 to appoint Mr. Nand Gopal Bengur to act on the strength of the said power of attorney. They entered into development agreement with G.B.Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. As per the said development agreement the owners and the developers agreed to construct the building in the ratio of 58% and 42%. The owner will get 42% of the total consideration amount. Developer will take initiative for booking the flat and other spaces from the intending purchaser and the consideration amount will be received by both the owners and developer. Further, these OPs have stated that the agreement for sale with the Complainant is totally false and fabricated and Complainant has no locus standi to make a claim. The OPs have also stated that Complainant has mentioned that he entered into agreement for purchasing 500 sq.ft. containing four bed rooms, one dining, two toilets, one kitchen, one verandah for total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, which cannot be believed. So, these OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.1 did not contest the complaint by filing written version. So, the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.1.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief. Against this OPs No.2 to 6 and 8 filed questionnaire. Thereafter, Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OPs No.2 to 6 and 8 filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OPs No.2 to 6 & 8 filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has sought for a direction upon the OPs for registration of the flat in her favour and for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
In this regard, it appears that one Xerox copy of development agreement is filed. On perusal of the copy of this development agreement, it appears that many portions of it are not filled on page No.10. This raises doubt in respect of this development agreement. Further, it appears that neither of the parties have signed upon it, except on page No.5, which bears the signature of one Tapas Ghosh and OP No.1. In addition, one copy of the power of attorney has been filed which reveals that Complainant Smt. Rajkumari A. Raitani has filed in favour of her husband Sri Ashok Kumar C. Raitani. Except this, Xerox copy of two money receipts have been filed which reveals that G.B.Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. received Rs.19,800/- and Rs.30,200/-. On these receipts also dates are not clear. There is no other document to establish that there was an agreement between Complainant and the OPs, wherein OPs agreed to sale 500 sq.ft. flat containing 4 bed rooms, dining spaces, bath room, kitchen and verandah on the 4th floor. In absence of these, it appears that there was no such agreement between the Complainant and the OPs on the basis of which Complainant has made the allegations and so Complainant failed to prove the allegations.
Hence,
ordered
CC/621/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest against OPs No.2 to 6 and 8 and ex-parte against other OPs.
