Judgment : Dt.20.2.2017
This is a complaint made by one Sri Jayprakashs Shah, son of N. Shah, 18/1, Mominpur Road, Kolkata- 700 023 against (1) M/s Sangha Enterprises, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at 49, Rajani Mukherjee Road, 1st fl., Kolkata-38, OP No.1, (2) Sri Sumit Shaw, OP No.2 and (3) Sri Amit Shaw, both sons of Sri Suresh Chand Shaw of 33/A, S. R. Das Road, P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 026, OP No.3, praying for a direction upon the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.90,000/- with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that the Complainant with intention to purchase a flat approached the OP No.1 who is a developer. The OP offered 3 flats for the accommodation of the Complainant as per demand. The OP No.1 received Rs.50,000/- in respect of the two flats measuring 500 sq.ft. each @ Rs.2,900/-. The Complainant subsequently paid Rs.40,000/- towards the flat at the ground floor which was @ Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. The OP No.1 did not intimate anything to the Complainant towards the progress of the project in terms of agreement for sale which was executed on 28.3.2014. Thereafter, Complainant lodged complaint to the Consumer Affairs Dept. But, Complainant did not get the flat. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.2 & 3 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. They have stated that the complaint is not maintainable. Further, they have stated that the complaint does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, because OPs neither made deficiency in services not adopted unfair trade practice. Further, they have stated that they have no knowledge as to whether the OP No.1 received Rs.50,000/- on 23.5.2013 and Rs.40,000/- on 4.11.2013. Further, they have stated that they have no idea about any agreement or transaction between OP No.1 and the Complainant. OP No.1 did not contest the complaint by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.1.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition and against this the OP Nos.2 & 3 have filed questionnaire to which the Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, the OP No.1 & 2 filed evidence wherein they have denied the allegations of the Complainant. However, it appears that the said evidence filed by OP Nos.2 & 3. Further, it appears that Complainant filed questionnaire against that evidence to which OP No.2 has replied.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.50,000/- which he paid. Further, on perusal of the Xerox copy of the document, it appears that the OP No.1 received Rs.90,000/- in support of which Xerox copies of the receipt are filed.
There is an agreement for sale copy of which has been filed and it has been signed by the vendor. But it does not bear the stamp of Sangha Enterprises and it is not clear who has signed on behalf of the Sangha Enterprises.
On perusal of this agreement copy of agreement for sale, it appears that it was entered into between the parties on 28.3.2014. It has been signed by the parties on the last page. But, it does not bear with stamp of OP No.1. Further, it appears that the amount was received by the Sangha Enterprises on 4.11.2013 and 23.5.2013 that means that transaction took place before entering into agreement for sale by the parties. Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/-. This clearly indicates that there is discrepancy between the payment made by the Complainant and the agreement for sale.
In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that Complainant failed to establish the allegation which he brought in the complaint petition.
Hence,
ordered
CC/299/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed against OP No.2 & 3 and ex-parte against OP No.1.
