Order No. 27 dt. 26/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was interest to purchase a plot of land at a consideration price of Rs.3,60,000/- and an agreement was effected between the parties of this case on 11.12.07. The complainant after waiting some years got an intimation from o.p. that the project has been abandoned on 7.12.11. The o.p. in order to refund the money issued several cheques to the complainant and those cheques were deposited in bank in the account of the complainant but the cheques were not cleared as the o.p. stopped the disbursement of the payment and there was also not sufficient amount in the account of o.p. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund of Rs.3,60,000/-, compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that in agreement itself it was mentioned that in event of any change of law or in the event any restriction or stipulation and if by virtue of the order of govt. or by any order of court the o.p. cannot be held liable for non execution of the deed of sale in favour of the complainant. The o.p. further stated that since there no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and there was no violation of the agreement for sale executed by o.p. as such the o.p. prayed for the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether there was an agreement for sale between the parties.
- Whether the o.p. failed to honour the said agreement for sale.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that agreement for sale was entered into between the complainant and the o.p. for a plot of land to be provided to the complainant by the o.p. The o.p. after receiving the entire consideration money executed the agreement for sale. From the materials on record it is admitted fact that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- to the o.p. while it was found that the land could not be provided to the complainant the amount was returned to the complainant by o.p. by issuing several cheques but those cheques were dishonoured. Considering the saiad fact ld. lawyer emphasized that the complainant will be entitled to get the amount paid by the complainant to o.p. along with other other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that in the agreement itself it was mentioned that if the terms of the agreement could not be executed due to the order passed by the govt. or by any court the o.p., cannot be held responsible. Apart from the said fact ld. lawyer urged that the agreement was executed in the year 2007 and the case was filed in the year 2012 i.e. long after the statutory period and on that score the complaint itself is to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties that the agreement for sale was entered into between the complainant and the o.p. and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards the consideration price of the land. The o.p. whenever it was found that the land cannot be provided to the complainant several cheques were given to the complainant towards the claim of the complainant. But those cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of the fund in the account of the o.p. and also the o.p. gave instruction to the bank for stop payment which clearly corroborates the claim of the complainant regarding the amount paid by him and the o.p. failed to return the amount in respect of the amount paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-.
So far as the point for limitation is concerned it appears that there was continuous cause of action for non fulfillment of the stipulation in the agreement itself as well as not returning the money to the complainant. In this respect we can rely on a decision as reported in III (2016) CPJ 25 (WB) wherein it was held by Hon’ble State Commission that the parties are bound by terms of agreement and there is hardly any scope to bypass terms and conditions of agreement. The complainant paid the entire consideration amount and as such entire burden lies upon the o.p. to fulfill their part of obligation in executing the deed of conveyance. On the basis of the said fact therefore we hold that the case is maintainable and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.443/2012 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p.is directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
