Today is fixed for order on the issue as to admissibility of the complaint.

The Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant was heard in full yesterday.

We have given consideration the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and the contents of the complaint together with other materials on record. The complainant has filed this case for a direction to the OPs for handing over an independent covered car parking space in view of the sale agreement. Agreement for sale was made on 11.05.2019.

It was agreed by and between the parties on 11.05.2019 that a flat measuring about 900 sq.ft. in OPs’ ‘Banyan Tree Garden’ housing complex at Hatiara along with a covered car parking space would be sold to the complainant at Rs. 39,90,000/-.

It further appears that the OPs executed and registered a sale deed on 14.08.2019 in favour of the complainant in respect to the said 900 sq.ft. flat together with at an open car parking space acknowledging the receipt of payment of at Rs. 41, 30,000/-. That means inflated price for the conveyed property was charged and instead of ‘covered’ open car parking space was conveyed. Some difference in between the agreement and the deed was created in relation to (a) the price of the property and (b) the nature of car parking space. It may very easily be presumed that such difference was made with the concurrence or consent of both the parties. It stands to reason that they arrived at an oral agreement on those points immediately before the creation of the deed for which such difference could bring about. In view of such oral agreement the complainant coughed up higher price and accepted open car parking space in pace of covered car parking space. Obviously Rs. 41, 30,000/- was fixed as the price of the flat and the open car parking slot. Admittedly nothing more than Rs. 41, 30,000/- was paid by the complainant. Payment for covered car parking space was not made.

Again, more than 3 years have elapsed in the meanwhile. The complainant who once accepted the flat together with open car parking slot on making payment for the price of the same is now debarred by the principle of estoppel from seeking a covered car parking space. That apart his claim is also time-barred and unfounded one.  The case of the complainant being stale and being hit by the principle of estoppel is not at all maintainable. Therefore, it should not be admitted.

 Hence, the case be and the same is dismissed as being not admitted.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by

HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT