Date of Order : 30.05.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant no. 1 in respect of flat no. E – 2 IInd floor with car parking space in the basement of “Kunti Villa”.
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs. 66,000/- which they have realized from the complainants than the settled and agreed amount of consideration money of sale i.e. Rs. 9,50,000/-.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service due to which the complainants were put under humiliation and harassment by the opposite parties.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for damage and loss caused to the complainants due to interest charged by the bank from the complainants due to non delivery of flat.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant no. 1 is the wife of the complainant no. 2. They desired to have a flat at Patna for which complainant no. 1 entered into an agreement for sale with opposite party no. 1 and 2 vide agreement for sale dated 24.05.2007 as will appear from annexure – 1. It is asserted by the complainant that after negotiation the enter price of the flat was finalized between the parties and the total consideration amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- of the aforesaid flat was agreed upon between the parties and as such the aforesaid amount of Rs 9, 50, 000/- was entered in the agreement for sale.
It is further case of the complainant that for paying the aforesaid consideration money to the opposite parties, the complainant no. 2 entered into an agreement with HDFC Bank because opposite party no. 1 is not earner. Thereafter HDFC Bank granted loan to the complainant for purchasing the aforesaid flat and the financer paid Rs. 7,05,000/- through cheque on different dates to the opposite party no. 1 which opposite party no. 2 received and thus the complainant have already paid Rs. 10,16,000/- to the opposite parties against the sale price of Rs. 9,50,000/-. After receiving the entire amount the opposite party no. 2 issued a letter whereby and where under the possession of the aforesaid flat was handed over to the complainant. Surprisingly the aforesaid letter did not bear any date but the said letter was received on 12.12.2018 as will appear from annexure – 7. After receiving the aforesaid amount the opposite parties were supposed to execute deed of sale of the flat in question to the complainant but from 12.12.2018 itself they began to evade this matter and lastly opposite party no. 2 send a letter to the complainant on their home address fully knowing that the complainant are not residing at their home. However the aforesaid letter was sent to the complainant by father – in – law on 09.03.2009 through courier to complainant no. 2 at Bharatpur which was received by him on 17.03.2009 the copy of aforesaid letter has been annexed as annexure – 8. The aforesaid letter was sent to the address of complainant no. 2 with malafied intention informing him regarding the cancellation of agreement for sale. It is surprising that no notice was given to the complainant by opposite parties prior to the cancellation of the flat.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement has been filed stating therein that the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- was not the sale price rather it was for the payment of stamp duty and registration fee. The consideration money of the aforesaid flat was actually fixed at Rs. 11,50,000/- out of which the complainant paid Rs. 9,16,000/- through different cheques and as such Rs. 2,34,000/- remained due towards the price of the flat.
It has been further stated that the complainant themselves asked to enter Rs. 1,00,000/- in the agreement for sale as they wanted to consult their income tax consultant.
It has been further asserted that the price of flat of Rs. 11,50,000/- has been accepted by the complainant as will appear from annexure – A.
It has been further asserted by opposite parties in their written statement that on request of complainant some extra work has been done in the flat and they had to pay extra charges for fire fighting, electricity, lift and as such the total amount for these extra work charges comes to Rs. 4,92,150/- out of which the complainant paid only Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of opposite party no. 2 thus there was balance of Rs. 2,34,000/- towards the price of flat and Rs. 3,92,150/- for the payment towards extra work. In Para – 18 of written statement it has been stated by the opposite parties that after cancellation of flat, the said flat has already been sold under registered sale deed dated 05.10.2009 and the purchaser of aforesaid flat have been coming in possession.
A rejoinder to the written statement has also been filed by the complainant stating therein that Rs. 9,50,000/- price was fixed and as such it was entered in the agreement for sale.
It is further stated that against the price of Rs. 9,50,000/- the complainants had paid Rs. 10,16,000/- to the opposite parties. The complainants have further stated that they had occasion to suggest opposite parties to give receipt of Rs. 2,11,000/- only and enter Rs. 1,00,000/- only for advance payment in the agreement for sale. They have denied that they requested the opposite parties to do extra work in the flat.
We have carefully perused the entire document submitted by the parties. It is true that in the agreement for sale the total price of the flat in question have been mentioned in Rs. 9,50,000/-. The opposite parties have admitted that they had received total amount of Rs. 10,16,000/- on different counts but they have asserted that the balance amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- is due towards flat and Rs. 3,92,150/- for payment of extra cost. Apart from the aforesaid fact the opposite parties have stated that they have sold the aforesaid flat under registered sale deed dated 05.10.2009 and the purchaser had come in possession.
From the record it appears that new purchaser of the aforesaid flat has not been made party.
Thus it is crystal clear that the aforesaid flat is under possession of new purchaser whose title will be affected if any order is passed with respect to the aforesaid flat in question which was earlier allotted in the name of complainant.
It further appears that there are various discrepancies in the fact asserted by both the parties in the complaint petition as well as written statement.
However, the opposite parties have themselves admitted that they received Rs. 10,16,000/- from the complainant towards the flat.
We are of the opinion that the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court for redressal of their grievance and realization of amount paid by them to the opposite parties with interest if the said amount had not been returned to the complainant.
With the aforementioned observation we do not find this complaint fit for interfering and as such this complaint stands dismissed.
Member President
