Judgment : Dt.13.7.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Salma Begum, wife of Late Haji Sultan Mahmood, residing at 96/3D Collin Street, P.S.-Park Street, Kolkat-700 016 against – (1) M/s D.K. Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd., OP No.1 and (2) Sri Asit Pramanik, one of the Director of D.K. Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd., having its office at 617A, Diamond Harbour Road, Kadamtala Bazar, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 063, OP No.2, praying for a direction upon the OPs (a) to pay a sum of Rs.7,58,800/- to the Complainant, (b) another direction upon the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss, injury, hardship and mental torture of the Complainant and (c) a direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that on 20.6.2012, OP approached the Complainant for showing the brochure of the project and convinced the Complainant to purchase one residential unit which was going to be constructed by the OPs. On such approach, Complainant agreed to purchase a residential unit at a consideration money of amount of Rs.18,75,000/-. Complainant paid the initial amount of Rs.5,62,000/- through cheque on four different dates and OPs issued money receipts. It was also verbally agreed that Complainant and OPs after completion of initial payment of amount will enter into an agreement for purchase of that residential unit.

            On 21.12.2012, Complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for purchase of a residential unit No.A & B Block-1, Villa-1, having an aggregate super built up area of  1340 sq.ft. with a car parking space. This is described in schedule B of the said agreement. In that agreement, OPs stated that they have through a deed of conveyance purchased some Sali land and mutated the land in their names and will get it converted this land into homestead land. It was further agreed that Complainant would pay Rs.18,75,000/- out of which Complainant has already paid Rs.5,62,000/-. The rest of the consideration money shall be paid by Complainant in installments. OPs agreed to handover the possession within a period of 18 months from the date of agreement. In case of delay in delivery of possession by the OPs beyond the stipulated period, the Complainant would be entitled to terminate and cancel the agreement and seek refund of the amount paid without any damages. Complainant after entering into agreement paid another amount of Rs.1,96,800/- through cheque dt.21.2.2015. Complainant remained confirmed about the timely delivery of the unit and therefore from time to time made payment. On 22.9.2015, Complainant with her son visited the site and found that even initial works were not done. Complainant contacted OP No.2 over phone to which OP No.2 told that the project may take another ten years and he will do nothing for the Complainant. Complainant found no other alternative lodged a complaint with the Consumer Affairs Dept. and thereafter filed this case.

            OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and also filed notes of argument.

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

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.7,58,800/- and also Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost. Xerox copy of the Annexure A is the booking form which discloses the terms and conditions. Annexure B is a Xerox copy of receipt which reveals that OP received Rs.1,50,000/-. There is another Xerox copy which reveals that Complainant gave Rs.1.5 lakh to the OPs. Similarly, another Xerox copy of receipt reveals that Complainant paid Rs.1,20,000/- on 20.8.2014. Thereafter another Xerox copy is there which reveals that Rs.1,42,000/- was received by OPs. But, this receipt has not been signed. Further, it appears that since original receipts have not been filed, who received the money and who signed on behalf of the OPs is not clear.

            Xerox copy of memorandum of agreement has been filed between Complainant and the OPs. This memorandum of agreement has not been signed either of the parties save and except on the last page which bears the signature of one Asit Pramanik. Further since the original agreement has not been filed it cannot be said as to who signed on behalf of whom.

            Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant did not prove the allegations made in the complaint petition and so the Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/25/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.