Order No. 20 dt. 20/10/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the o.p. and the o.p. asked for balance consideration money for completing the flat. The o.p. submitted a fraudulent possession letter to get the money from the bank though the flat was not made ready. The o.p. withdrew the amount and delayed the construction of the building. On the basis of the said dispute several meetings took place and o.p. gave an undertaking that he would complete the flat and in the agreement for sale the conditions mentioned in the said agreement were not fulfilled. Subsequently the flat was handed over to the complainant but the terms and condition s of the agreement for sale was not fulfilled. The complainant in details stated in the complaint that the o.p. did not provide the separate electric meter, has not provided the completion certificate, the various works were not completed including plastering of stairs, top roof, etc., the doors were provided which were defective. The complainant had to repair those doors by paying Rs.5500/-. The power point in the bed room, bath room, kitchen were not properly arranged, the balcony was not provided at the entrance of the flat, poor quality door was provided, the painting on exterior portion of the building would be finished with cement paint but no painting work was done. On the basis of those facts the complainant filed this case praying for Rs.10 lakhs relating to the completion of work by the complainant, compensation towards interest of Rs.16 lakhs and compensation for mental agony of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.1 lakh for litigation expenses.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the o.p. is the sole proprietor developer and being the sole developer entered into an development agreement with the land owner Smt. Abha Dey measuring the land of about 2 cottah 4 chattak 8 sq.ft. whereby it was decided that o.p. would construct G+3 residential building. As per the said agreement o.p. completed the construction of the work and after such completion the developer o.p. expressed his intention to sale / transfer and convey the developer allocation to different intending purchaser. The complainant purchased a flat measuring 1050 sq.ft. at a consideration price of Rs.15 lakhs and an agreement for sale was entered into on 1.3.11. After completion of the said building it was decided that the possession will be handed over after payment of the balance consideration price. The o.p. though delivered the possession and deed was registered on 12.8.11. The o.p. discharged his obligation as per the terms of the terms of the said agreement for sale dt.1.3.11. The complainant after getting possession issued a possession certificate with his full satisfaction and put his signature there. The cause of action of this case arose on 12.8.11 and the complaint petition was filed 2 years 7 months thereafter, therefore this case is not maintainable. It was further stated that the relief claimed by the complainant totaling the amount of Rs.33,97,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. In view of those facts the o.p. had prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Was there any agreement for sale between the parties and as per the said agreement the flat was sold to the complainant.
- Whether the complainant took possession on 12.8.11.
- Whether the complainant filed the case within the statutory period.
- Whether the Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
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 as per the terms of the agreement o.p. developer did not act accordingly and the possession was given to the complainant in respect of unfinished work and though the o.p. gave an undertaking that he would complete the work but nothing was done for which the complainant had to bear the expenses for completion of the remaining work left by the o.p. Ld. further emphasized that the complainant repeatedly requested the o.p. to complete the work and since the o.p. failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainant thereby it is to be considered that there was recurring cause of action and this case is maintainable. Ld. lawyer further stated that the amount if the Forum finds that the excessive amount has been claimed by the complainant this Forum can pass an order by reducing the claim of the complainant so that the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum may be invoked for passing necessary order in favour of the complainant.
In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above ld. lawyer for the complainant prayed or allowing the prayer of the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the possession certificate was given by the complainant and he did not raise any objection at the time of taking objection and the said possession was given to the complainant on 12.8.11. But the deed was also registered on the said dater therefore after the lapse of more than statutory period of two years the case has been filed by the complainant which is not at all maintainable. Apart from the said fact ld. lawyer emphasized that the total; amount as claimed by the complainant for having the relief from this Forum is more than Rs.33 lakhs and this Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case, accordingly the case itself must fail on that score also.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant had entered into an agreement for sale that the o.p. developer and the developer o.p. after completion of the building gave possession of the flat measuring 1050 sq.ft to the complainant and after getting possession the complainant issued a certificate whereby he expressed his satisfaction that he got the possession of the flat and he did not raise any objection regarding the non-completion of the some work left by the o.p. It is also relevant to mention here that the registration of the flat was made by the o.p. on 12.8.11 and this case was filed on 13.3.14 i.e. after the lapse of statutory period and since the possession was delivered and registration was made therefore it cannot be said that there was continuous cause of action for which the complainant can file this case seeking his redressal from this Forum. It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant has sought for relief involvement of the amount of Rs.33,97,500/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Considering all these aspects we hold that the complaint case is not maintainable and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.199/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
