This is a complaint made by one Mr. Dharmendra Kumar against M/s M.L.A. Constructions & five others, praying for a direction upon the OPs to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the Schedule B shop room along with proportionate share in the land and all other common facilities and to pay the costs for negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs; alternatively, to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest along with costs, totalling Rs. 20,00,000/-.

Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant booked a 120 sq. ft. shop room on the South-Eastern side of the ground floor situated at P-346, Vidya Sagar Sarani, Barisha, P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700 008, for which the Complainant entered into an Agreement for Sale with the owner of the land through their Attorney and the Developer on 10-10-2014 and paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of total consideration money of Rs. 12,50,000/- to the developer.  Complainant has further stated that OP Nos. 3 to 6 are in possession of the piece of land on which the shop was to be constructed and they entered into a Development Agreement with the OP Nos. 1&2 for this purpose on 12-11-2012.  It is alleged that despite several requests and reminders, OPs have not completed the super construction work of the schedule shop room.  OPs also did not handover the possession of the shop room.  Since the Complainant did not get possession of the shop room, he issued a notice upon the OPs through his Advocate, but despite service of notice, OPs have not handed over the shop room and so, the Complainant filed this case.

OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV, wherein it has denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is further stated that the complaint is baseless, speculative, and vexatious, Further, it is stated that in case of dispute between the  Complainant and the OP No. 1, the matter needs to be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  OP No. 1 has also stated that the Agreement for Sale was drafted by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant.  It is stated that commercial sanction of the building could not be obtained and so the Complainant was asked to take refund of the earnest money, but he is still hell-bent to get a shop room.  Denying any laches on its part, the OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

Other OPs did not contest the case and so, the case was heard ex parte against them.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, against which OP No. 1 filed questionnaire and in turn the Complainant filed Affidavit-in Reply.  Similarly, OP No. 1 filed Affidavit-in-Chief, against which Complainant put some questionnaire and the OP No. 1 answered the same through Affidavit-in-Reply.  Besides, both sides also filed written notes of argument. 

Main point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs he has prayed for.

In the form of document, Complainant filed original copy of the Agreement for Sale and money receipts showing payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- . 

Admittedly, OP No. 1 has received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as advance out of the total consideration money of Rs. 12,50,000/-.  The primary relief sought for by the Complainant is execution and registration of the  shop room in favour of the Complainant or get refund of Rs. 4,00,000/- in lieu of the shop room concerned. 

In this respect, it is candidly stated by the OP no. 1 that, despite its vigorous endeavours, it could not obtain commercial sanction of the revised plan from the authority concerned.  In such circumstances, we feel, asking the OP No. 1 to handover possession of the shop room in favour of the Complainant and execute and register the same in favour of the Complainant would be futile.  On the other hand, insofar as Complainant is agreeable to accept the advance deposited money, it appears, directing the OP No. 1 to refund Rs. 4,00,000/- that it has received from the Complainant would serve the object of justice.

Although Complainant has sought for relief against the OP Nos. 3 to 6, it appears that none of them was a signatory to the Agreement for Sale that the Complainant entered into with the OP Nos. 1 & 2.  As such, we see no reason whatsoever to pass any order against these OPs.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/106/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against OP Nos. 3 to 6.  OP Nos. 1&2 are directed to refund Rs. 4,00,000/- within two months of this order, i.d., the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. after expiry of aforesaid two months till full and final payment is made.