The present case is filed by one Sri Neelotpal Das against M/s Ishani Construction and its Proprietress, Smt. Indrani Ghosh and also against one Sri Tarak Chandra Das, praying for a direction upon the OPs to provide covered car parking space, alternatively, return the entire consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and costs of present proceeding.

In brief, case of the Complainant, is that, he entered into an Agreement for Sale with the OP No. 2 on 26-09-2013 for purchasing a 808 sq. ft. flat on the third floor North-Eastern side of Premises No. 301, Purbachal Kalitala Road, P.S. Kasba, presently Garfa, Kolkata – 700 078 along with one covered car parking garage measuring 120 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the said premises.  Total price of the garage was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/- and that of the flat at Rs. 22,00,000/-, i.e., total Rs. 26,00,000/-.  Pursuant to said Agreement, by a Deed of Conveyance dated 05-12-2013, the Complainant purchased the flat along with a car parking space on payment of entire consideration money.  Subsequently, although Complainant got possession of the flat in question, he was initially asked to park his car on the back side open common space for the time being till such time the covered garage below the flat was allotted and the OPs sought for some time to provide the same.  It is stated that the Complainant, being an international chess player, has to travel various places around the globe to attend international tournaments.  It is further stated by the Complainant that on his return from abroad on 08-05-2015, he found that no allotment was made in respect of covered garage within the premises and constant follow ups of the matter with the OPs did not yield any positive result.  So, he sent a notice to the OPs through his Ld. Advocate on 01-08-2014, but that too failed to evoke any response from the OPs.  Hence, this case.

On the basis of aforesaid facts, the case was admitted and notices duly served upon the OPs.  However, none of them turned up to contest the case.  Hence, the case was heard ex parte against them.

The solitary point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him, or not.

Decision with reasons

In support of his case, Complainant has filed photocopies of Agreement for Sale dated 26-09-2013, Deed of Conveyance dated 05-12-2013, and Lawyer’s notice dated 01-08-2014.

It is stated by the Complainant in his petition of complaint that cost of the garage was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000/- and that of the flat at Rs. 22,00,000/-.  We afraid, on going through the photocopies of Agreement for Sale and Deed of Conveyance on record, we do not come across any such stipulation.  We, thus, fail to comprehend on what basis the Complainant derived at the said figure of Rs. 4,00,000/- being the cost of car parking space.  As we know, the price of a flat vis-à-vis car parking space cannot be the same.  As such, figuring out the value of the car parking space on the basis of proportionate area of the space is not tenable.

Further, on a closer scrutiny of the photocopy of Agreement for Sale it appears that the provision for car parking space was inserted later on by hand and most surprisingly, as per Schedule D (page 15) of the said Agreement for Sale, only the cost of the flat is Rs. 26,00,000/-. True, the photocopy of Deed of Conveyance denotes that the cost of flat and open car parking space together comes to Rs. 26,00,000/-.  However, what is indeed intriguing is that, save and except concluding page of the Deed of Conveyance, i.e., page no. 15 of the Deed of Conveyance, nowhere in the said document, both sides put their signatures. It further transpires from the photocopy of Deed of Conveyance on record that the OP No. 1 alone put her signature on page 2 of the Deed of Conveyance.  It is indeed unusual for the parties to an agreement to put their signatures in such an erratic manner.

Taking into consideration such anomalies and more so, without due authentication, merely based on the photocopy of such a vital piece of document, we cannot come to any conclusion about the veracity of contents of the same. Accordingly, we do not deem it wise to pass any order based on such defective documents.

Even for the sake of argument, if we set aside our reservation about the authenticity of the Agreement for Sale and/or Deed of Conveyance for a moment, we find, it is clearly mentioned in the said documents that by such agreement, OP Nos. 1&2 agreed to provide an open car space to the Complainant.  Against this backdrop, prayer of the Complainant for passing necessary order upon the OPs to allot a covered car parking space is simply not feasible. 

Last but not the least, apart from mere accusation, the Complainants have not come up with any material proof/immaculate evidence to establish that he has been denied of open car parking space at the premises in question or that the OPs surreptitiously sold out and/or allotted two car parking space available within the premises to some other persons. 

Accordingly, we find no merit with the present complaint case and therefore, we are constrained to hold that, the Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief(s).

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that RBT/CC/129/2016 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OPs.  No order as to costs.