IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 132/S/2015. DATED : 10.01.2017.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.
COMPLAINANT : ANJU RANI,
W/O Sri Prem Kumar,
Central Colony, New Jalpaiguri, Quarter No.175/A,
P.O. & P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri,
Phone - 8343965159.
O.Ps. 1. : GANESH CHANDRA DAS,
S/O Late Gour Gopal Das,
Prop. M/S G.D. Construction,
Babupara South, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,
Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
2. : FULU RANI DAS,
W/O. Late Paritosh Chandra Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
3. : PRANAB KUMAR DAS,
S/O. Late Paritosh Chandra Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
4. : MINA DAS,
W/O. Sri Biman Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
5. : SUDIP DAS,
W/O. Late Paritosh Chandra Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
6. : SIMA DASGUPTA,
W/O. Late Prasanta Dasgupta, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
7. : SIKHA NAHA,
W/O. Sri Niren Saha, W/O Late Paritosh Chandra Das
of Millan Pally, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling,
Pin- 734 001.
8. : GOUTAM DAS,
S/O. Late Paritosh Chandra Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
9. : JIBAN DAS,
S/O. Late Paritosh Chandra Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
10. : TAPAN DAS,
S/O. Late Paritosh Chandra Das, of Millan Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.
Contd......P/2
-:2:-
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.
FOR THE OPs : Sri Sunil Kumar Sarkar, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that she made agreement with OP Nos.2 to 10 for purchasing a flat of area 736 Sq. ft. by price of Rs.18,09,500/- as described in the schedule of the agreement. The clause 5 of the agreement is specific an including individual water supply system, WBSEDCL connection, Registration charges, Service Tax, the total settled amount was Rs.21,11,500/- with specific facility included as two wheeler space. The complainant advanced Rs.50,000/- to the OP. The complainant got sanction order of the loan. The OP demanded more Rs.2,71,697/- in addition to agreed upon and without parking area. The complainant sent legal notice on 05.11.2015. The OP No.1 replied through his advocate. The notices have been annexed as 4 & 5. It is also specific case that the OP did not make registration of the flat in spite of request made by the complainant. It is also case of the complainant that EMI has been started deducting the same from the salary of her husband who works in a railway department. Hence, this case. The complainant prays for order for return back of Rs.50,000/- by OP and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment.
The OP appeared, contested the case and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant. The matter of agreement is admitted by the OP. It is also admitted that total amount was settled as Rs.21,11,500/- (para H of written version). OP also agreed that at the time of agreement complainant paid Rs.50,000/-. It is specific case of OP that the complainant did not pay any balance amount to OP No.1 by any bank or LIC Housing Finance Ltd. It is also case of the OP that they have requested the complainant to pay balance amount and take possession and expressed their desire to execute Deed of Sale in favour of the complainant and her husband after receiving the said balance consideration amount within 23rd Day of November, 2015. But the complainant did not act to take the possession and registration of this Sale Deed. It is also case of the OP that on 05.01.2015 the complainant sent notice to OP No.1. After receiving the said notice, OP No.1 has given reply on 14.11.2015 intimating them for full payment and take registration of the flat. But the complainant even after performing Ceremony of Griha Prabesh did not take the flat or did not take any step for registration of Sale Deed. In spite of
Contd......P/3
-:3:-
answer of the reply by the OP, the complainant did not take any step for registration. Moreover, the OPs has been suffered lose more than Rs.2,00,000/- for blockage the amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. Therefore, as the complainant has not taken any initiative to pay the balance consideration amount and has also not taken any initiative to execute Deed of Sale in her favour, so, the complainant has no cause of action and is not entitled to get any relief. It is also further case that OP No.1 has been compelled to file a suit against the complainant and her husband in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Siliguri on 18.02.2016 being Title Suit No.48/2016 praying for decree of permanent injunction against the complainant for taking possession of the suit flat. So, it is prayed that complaint should be dismissed.
To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-
1. Xerox copy of 1st Agreement – Annexure -I.
2. Xerox copy of Loan paper – Annexure-II.
3. Xerox copy of 2nd Agreement – Annexure-III.
4. Xerox copy of Legal Notice of Dibakar Roy – Annexure-IV.
5. Xerox copy of Legal Notice (Reply) of Debasish Chakraborty – Annexure-V.
6. Xerox copy of Hand Note – Annexure-VI & VII.
OP No.1 has filed following documents to prove his case :-
1. General Power of Attorney dated 20.12.2007 – Annexure -A.
2. Xerox copy of Dee of Sale being No.3357 for the year of 1969 – Annexure-B.
3. Agreement dated 24.09.2015 – Annexure-C.
4. Notice dated 05.01.2015 issued by Sri Dibakar Roy, Advocate, Siliguri – Annexure-D.
5. Letter dated 14.11.2015 issued by Ld. Advocate Debasish Chakraborty along with Postal receipt – Annexure-E.
6. Letter dated 29.12.2015 issued by Ld. Advocate Debasish Chakraborty along with Postal receipt – Annexure-VI.
Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.
OPs have filed evidence-in-chief.
Complainant has not filed Written Notes on argument.
OPs have filed Written Notes of Argument.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Contd......P/4
-:4:-
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
Complainant has filed some documents. But complainant did not file any document to show that complainant paid the OPs total price of the flat. The complainant did not show any paper to establish that OPs claimed extra amount of Rs.2,71,697/-. In the written notes of argument OPs stated that total consideration money was settled at Rs.21,11,500/- including connection charges of water, connection charges of electric connection, registration charges, service charges etc. and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the OPs as an earnest money out of total sum of Rs.21,11,500/-. The complainant served legal notice on 05.11.2015. The OPs have filed reply through his advocate. There is no iota of evidence that as per agreement the complainant paid full amount of consideration money to the OPs. Without giving full amount of consideration money to the OPs, complainant cannot claim any right of possession of the flat or have no right to get registered sale of deed in his favour.
In this case, complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony. OPs also have given counter allegation that OP No.1 has already invested the amount for the purpose of construction of the said flat by arranging money from other sources with interest and for which the OP No.1 has already been suffered loss of Rs.2,00,000/- for blockage the amount of Rs.18,00,000/-.
In this case, there is no single drop of evidence to establish that complainant paid total consideration money i.e., complainant took effective steps to take the flat by a sale registered deed after making full price of the flat. So, the allegation of the complainant is baseless and the complainant is unable to prove his case against the OPs praying compensation.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.132/S/2015 is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without cost.
Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
