Delhi

East Delhi

CC/92/2015

SANJAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

NITIN - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 92/15

 

Shri Sanjay Kumar

S/o Shri Moti Ram

R/o 93, 2^nd Floor, Gali No. 8

Near Baijnath Dharamshala

Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara

Delhi – 110 032                                                                              ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Shri Nitin Goswami

S/o Shri Bhudev Prasad

R/o H. No. B-74/12, Mandir Wali Gali

North Ghonda, Delhi – 110 053                                                             ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 23.08.2013

Judgment Reserved on:09.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 20.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant Shri Sanjay Kumar against Shri Nitin Goswami (OP), praying for directions to OP to immediately finish the work of the flat and execute the registry of the flat in the name of the complainant, Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony, Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.        Facts in brief are that OP entered into collaboration agreement with one, Smt. Maya Devi under which he was to construct the four storey building alongwith parking at the ground floor over the property bearing no. 358, Pathan Pura, Shahdara, measuring 50 Sq. Yds.   As per one of the terms and conditions of the agreement, OP was entitled to transfer the ownership right of the 1^st floor flat in the said property.  On the basis of the collaboration agreement, OP entered into Money Receipt-cum-Agreement, dated 27.05.2013 with the complainant, under which OP agreed to sell the built-up Eastern Northern Side, First floor flat to the complainant for total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-.  The complainant had paid in all Rs. 2,00,000/- and    Rs. 1,76,000/- by way of cash and cheque.  It was orally agreed between OP and the complainant that the construction of the said flat shall be completed by May 2014.  Further, it was orally agreed by the OP that he shall execute sale deed in favour of the complainant and at that time, sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was to be paid by the complainant.  It was further stated that the complainant had further paid Rs. 1,76,000/- to the OP by way of cash and cheque.  Despite lapse of considerable time period, OP did not comply/fulfill his part of contractual obligation. 

            Legal notice was also sent by the complainant.  Further, expenses of Rs. 36,975/- were borne by the complainant for some work in the above said flat.  Bills, legal notice, collaboration agreement are annexed with the complaint.

3.        OP was served with the notice of this complaint.  However, neither anyone appeared on behalf of OP nor any reply was filed, hence, proceeded ex-parte on 10.07.2015.

4.        Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit, where Shri Sanjay Kumar, the complainant deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and relied upon the money receipt –cum-agreement as Ex.CW1/1, expenditure incurred by the complainant (Ex.CW1/2)(colly.), legal notice dated 04.08.2014 (Ex.CW1/3), collaboration agreement (Ex.CW1/4).

5.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  Firstly, careful reading of the money receipt i.e. Ex.CW1/1 reveals that the dates are not mentioned in it as to when OP shall handover the said flat to OP, even Ex.CW1/4 bears no dates, as to when OP shall handover the possession of completed structure to Smt. Maya Devi, certainty/time is the essence of every contract. 

Secondly, the agreement between the complainant and OP is of contractual nature and it was purely a commercial transaction where sale deed was to be executed by the OP in favour of the complainant.  In the instant complaint, the complainant is not a consumer qua OP.  The prayer made by the complainant also clearly shows that the present dispute between complainant and OP is purely civil in nature, which needs proper trial.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed without orders to cost.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President