Judgment : Dt.25.9.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by Manotosh Mondal, s/o Sri Kumud Ranjan Mondal, 1/39, Netaji Nagar, P.O.-Regent Park, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 092 against Sri Dilip Kumar Das, s/o Nibaran Das, 304, Green Park, Purba Poolbagan (Old 6/1E) 2nd floor, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 084, OP No.1 and Sri Sudip Paul, s/o Late Paresh Chandra Paul, 2/19B, Shree Colony, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 092, OP No.2, praying for a flat and compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- and litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainant decided to purchase a flat of about 500 sq.ft. at ground floor at premises No.16/10, Raipur, Mondal Para Road, Kolkata-700 047, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, from Sri Krishna Real Estate developers at a cost of Rs.13,25,000/-. Complainant applied for Housing Loan to Reliance Home Finance Limited and was granted loan to the tune of Rs.10,60,000/-. Thereafter, an agreement for sale was executed on 17.12.2014, which was registered. This agreement for sale reflects Memorandum of Consideration at page 15 that developer, Sri Dilip Kumar Das and Sudip Paul partners of Shri Krishna Real estate developers received Rs.7,05,755/- out of which Reliance Home Finance had paid Rs.5,05,755/- by cheque out of this sanctioned loan amount of Rs.10,60,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant paid Rs.2,60,250/- to the OPs on 16.2.2015. After receiving the payment, OPs completed the structure of brick, works including roof of Complainant’s flat within December, 2015. But, unfortunately, OPs were found missing from residential and office address. So, Complainant filed this case.
OPs did not take any step so the case is heard ex-parte against them.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he reiterated the fact mentioned in the complaint petition.
Main point of determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for his flat as soon as possible. Further, on perusal of the Xerox copy of agreement for sale, it appears that, upto Page No.13 only Complainant has signed. On Page 14 & 15 there appears same signature of somebody else. But, it is not clear who has signed it, though the Agreement for Sale appears to be registered but since original has not been filed, it is difficult to make out as to whether OPs signed on it. In the circumstances, Complainant failed to prove the allegation that he entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing a flat and so this prayer cannot be allowed. Similarly, prayer for compensation and litigation cost do not appear to be warranted as Complainant failed to prove the allegations which he brought in the complaint.
Hence,
ordered
CC/192/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.
