Judgment : Dt.31.10.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Ananta Mondal, son of Krishna Chandra Mondal, residing a Vill & P.O.-Anantarampur, P.S.-Palta, PIN-743 504 against Soumen Chakraborty, son of Ashoke Chakraborty, sole proprietor of M/s GRSV Construction, having its place of business at 2, James Long Sarani, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008, OP No.1, Smt. Kananbala Bera, wife of late Murari Mohan Bera, residing at 238/A, Vidyasagar Sarani, Purba Barisha, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 008, OP No.2, Smt. Anju Bera, wife of late Dilip Bera, OP No.3, Smt. Bula Adhikary, wife of Sri Ashim Adhikary, OP No.4, Smt. Sikha Bakshi, wife of Sri Jahar Bakshi, OP No.5 – 3 to 5 residing at 238/A, Vidyasagar Sarani, Purba Barisha, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 008 and Smt. Mita Sengupta, wife of Sri Suvra Sengupta, residing at 26/2, Koilash Ghosh Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008, OP No.6, praying for completing the construction of shoproom and its delivery to the Complainant by the OP and also making conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant. Further prayer is compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant entered into an agreement for a shoproom to start a business of hardware material for interior decoration, on 2.10.2012. In terms of the agreement for sale, OP No.1 was to hand over and deliver the possession of said shop room in favour of the purchaser within 24 months from the date of the said agreement. OP No.1 also undertook to register a deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant. In terms of the said agreement for sale, Complainant made payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter Rs.2,00,000/-. Rest 2 lacs was to be paid by Complainant to OP No.1 at the time of delivery of possession of the said shop room.

            On several occasions, Complainant requested OP No.1 to deliver the possession but OP No.1 did not oblige and so, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has submitted that agreement for sale dt.2.10.2012 was not acted upon by the Complainant as he did not make the payments as agreed upon by him with OP and so Complainant willfully violated the terms of agreement. Complainant also stated to the OP No.1 that he does not have money to pay and requested for refund of the money which he has paid.

            OP No.1 was always ready and willing to refund the money but Complainant did not accept the money and filed this case and so this case be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. OP No.1 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.1 filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            First prayer of Complainant is a direction upon OP No.1 for handing over possession of the shoproom and also for execution and registration of the conveyance. Alternatively, to refund the price with 18% interest.

            In this regard, we find that Complainant has filed an original receipt which reveals that he paid Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, it appears from the agreement for sale that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of agreement for sale.

            It is the contention of OP No.1 that Complainant did not make payment in time and so delivery of possession was not handed over. On perusal of the agreement for sale, it appears that Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- a booking money at the time of execution of the agreement.

            Complainant was requested to pay another Rs.2,00,000/- within one month of January, 2013 i.e. from the date of agreement. However, original receipt filed by the Complainant reveals that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.12.2013 i.e. after about one year from the date of agreement for sale. This makes it clear that Complainant violated the terms of agreement for sale. OP No.1 expressed his inability to handover possession because he has already sold this shoproom after Complainant violated the terms of agreement for sale.

            So, the question of direction upon OP No.1 for delivering possession and making conveyance deed do not arise. At best, Complainant can get back his money which he has paid to OP No.1. There is no dispute that Complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the OP No.1. Since Complainant has violated the terms of agreement for sale, he is not entitle for any interest, compensation and even litigation cost.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/204/2017 is allowed in part on contest against OP No.1 and dismissed ex-parte against other OPs. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant within three months of this order, in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order.