This is a complaint made by one Sri Pabitra Kumar Biswas against Sri Debabrata Banerjee and Sri Birendra Nath Dey, praying for a direction upon the OPs to handover and register the flat in question in favour of the Complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant entered into an Agreement for Sale with the OP No. 1 on 01-03-2004 for purchasing a super built up area of 456 sq. ft. containing one bed room, one dining, one toilet, one kitchen on the back portion (ground floor) of Premises No. 443, New Santoshpur, Kolkata – 700 075 at a total consideration of Rs. 4,56,000/-. The Complainant made booking payment of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on 01-03-2004 and 13-03-2004, respectively, against proper receipts. It is stated that the Complainant also took loan for the purpose of purchasing the said flat. Complainant further claimed to have paid the entire consideration money to the OP No. 1. It is alleged that, despite receipt of entire consideration money, the OP did not register the flat in his name. The Complainant made verbal communication with the OP on number of occasions, but to no avail. Hence, this case.
OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV. Besides denying all the material allegations of the complaint, it is stated by this OP that the purported unregistered Agreement for Sale was executed on 01-03-2004 and the instant case is filed in September, 2014, i.e., after a lapse of 10-½ years. Thus, the instant case is not at all maintainable.
OP No. 2 also contested the case by filing WV. This OP denied entering into any Agreement for Sale with the Complainant and claimed that he has got no knowledge of any agreement dated 01-03-2004 regarding the property mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition of complaint. He has further denied receiving any money from the Complainant. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this case.
Points for consideration
- Whether the instant case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him?
Decision with reason
Point No. 1:
It appears, the maintainability petition has already been disposed of in favour of the Complainant vide Order no. 6 dated 10-11-2014. Therefore, we are not inclined to delve into the issue afresh.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
It is stated by the Complainant that he has paid the entire consideration money to the OP. In support of his contention, the Complainant filed photocopies of two money receipts issued by M/s Dee Kay Enterprise for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-, i.e., total Rs. 75,000/-. Additionally, he has also filed photocopies of some documents viz., statement of accounts, loan sanction letter, counter foil of cash deposit slips of HDFC Bank and UTI Bank Ltd. pertaining to the loans availed of by him. Incidentally, all the aforesaid documents stand in the name of the Complainant. There is nothing on record to show that apart from Rs. 75,000/-, OP No. 1 received any other amount from the Complainant. Even we find that some corrections have been made on page no. 22 of the purported Agreement for Sale where details of mode of payment have been set out. However, it appears that said corrections have not been authenticated by any of the concerned parties. We afraid, no reliance can be placed upon such a document.
Seemingly, the very factum of payment of entire consideration money is not proven by the Complainant by adducing requisite supportive documents. On the other hand, it is admitted by the Complainant that OP No. 1 also disputed his claim of receiving the entire consideration money by serving a lawyer’s notice on 14-05-2014. In such circumstances, when the very issue of payment of entire consideration money by the Complainant to the OP No. 1 is under stress, we afraid, no order can be passed directing the latter to execute and register the flat in question in favour of the former. Consequently, the Complainant is not entitled to other reliefs as well.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that RBT/CC/40/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs, but without any cost.
