Orissa

Cuttak

CC/63/2022

Dr Sanjay Choudhuri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nandakishore Tiberwal - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

28 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.63/2022

 

Dr. Sanjay Choudhuri and Gayatri Choudhuri,

Both are resident of Flat No.271,7^th Floor,Tower-2,

Silver Lining Apartment,Mission Road,

Buxibazar,Cuttack-753001.                                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Sri Venkateswar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented through its Managing Director,

Mr. Nanda Kishore Tiberwal,At:Kazi Bazar,PO:Chandinichowk,

                 PS-Lalbag,Cuttack-753002

 

2.        Satish Kumar Goenka,Diriector Sri Venkateswar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Kazi Bazar,PO:Chandinichowk,

                  PS-Lalbag,Cuttack-753002

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     12.04.2022

Date of Order:   28.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr.R.K.Pattnaik,Adv.& Associates.

For the O.Ps               :          Mr.K.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri DebasishNayak,President.              

                                 

          The case of the complainants bereft unnecessary details as made in the complaint petition in nutshell is that, intending to purchase a flat for residing and after going through the advertisement of the O.Ps, the complainants had entered into an agreement with them on 11.1.18 for the said purpose.  The case of the flat was of Rs.54,84,500/- which is a 3 BHK flat alongwith Car parking space at the basement.  As per the agreement, flat no.271 in the 7^th floor of Tower No.2 building was allotted to the complainants.  Being the outright purchasers, the said flat was delivered to the complainants by the O.Ps on 14.3.2019 but the car parking space was not delivered to  them.  When the matter was raised by the complainants, the O.Ps had demanded an additional amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.  Ultimately, the complainants were forced to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which was transferred to the account of the O.Ps through RTGS/NEFT on 20.9.19 by the complainants.  On 16.11.19, the complainants were given the car parking space by both the O.Ps but on verification, the complainants found that the car parking space allotted to them by the O.Ps was an open spaceand not for the garage of the apartment at the basement.  It had no roof.  When the matter was intimated by the complainants to the O.Ps, and even after sending legal notice, the O.Ps had remained silent for which the complainants have filed this case claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards  mental agony together with a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards their litigation cost.  They have further prayed for refund of the additional amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the O.Ps alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum till the total amount is repaid.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version wherein they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petitionit being not maintainable.  They agree about the complainants purchasing from them one 3 BHK Apartment but they disagree about the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- made towards the car parking space as alleged against them by the complainants.  In this context they have drawn attention towards the schedule of payment as mentioned in the agreement executed in-between them and the complainants where the parking space amount is reflected as zero.  According to them, subsequently when the complainants requested for car parking space they were demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and had agreed to take the open space parking which was allotted to them in the month of September,2019.  Thus according to them there is no deficiency in service, no practice of unfair trade for which they claim that the complaint petition be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised unfair trade ?

                        iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

While going through the documents as available being filed by the complainants here in this case, it is noticed that the complainants who have filed the copy of the agreement as executed in-between themselves and the O.Ps wherein reflecting towards the cost of the 3 BHK Apartment as purchased by them from the O.Ps  the parking area cost is reflected to be of zero and quite interestingly, the complainants have being literate persons had unhesitatingly signed the same without raising any objectionthereto.  Thus, the claim of the complainants that they had earlier paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the car parking space while purchasing the flat in question does not appear to be correct.  Subsequently, the complainants have paid the O.Ps a sum of Rs.2,50,023.60p through RTGS on 20.9.2019.  Thus, after receiving he said amount, the O.Ps had allotted to them a car parking space.  The complainants are unable to produce beforethisCommission any document to the effect that if they had paid the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for having a car parking space at the basement of the building.  In absence of such, the claim of the complainants to have a car parking space at the basement area does not hold good.  Accordingly, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps nor it can be said that the O.Ps have practised unfair trade.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here that the case as filed by the complainants is maintainable and the complainants are entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by them.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.             

                                                                                                                                Sri DebasishNayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                              Member