Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/15/66

Lakshmi Narayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Priya Ranjan, Prop. Aruna Constructions - Opp.Party(s)

Ananad Vardhan

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complainant Lakshmi Narayan filed this case for a claim of Rs. 4000/- per month from 18.12.2013 till the date of handing over the flat as compensation and direction to handover possession of one flat on additional constructed floor on ownership basis after accepting Rs. 2.50 lacs and compensation of 1.00 lac for mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

2          The case of the complainant is that he being the owner of land in plot No. 742, Khata No. 172 and Plot No. 743 of the same Khata, made a Development Agreement with O.P. Aruna Construction on 20.07.2010 for development and construction of a residential complex as per approved plan. The consideration of the transfer of the land is the O.P. would hand over one 3BHK Flat No. VA/22, having built up area 1090 sq. ft on the first floor of the building.

            It is alleged that O.P. has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and constructed extra floor to which complainant protested against the approved MADA plan. Then O.P. had agreed to give one flat on additional constructed floor and O.P. asked the complainant to pay Rs. 2.50 lacs for this new flat and complainant paid two cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/-  dt 02.09.2013 and another cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- dt. 01.10.2013 but O.P. did not encashed the same.

            The finished flat was to be handed over within 30 months from the date of sanction of map but the flat was handed over on 12.05.2015 and liable for delayed charge of Rs. 4000/-.

            O.P. has also illegally occupied 10 ft land of road violating the term and conditions of the agreement.

            A legal notice was given on 16.10.2014 but reply received on vague and untrue.

            3          The following documents are filed by the complainant:-

Anx-1 Copy of the Development Agreement.

Anx-2 Copy of Power of Attorney of four person including the complainant.

Anx-3 to 3/1 Copies of two cheques.

Anx-4 Copy of the Legal Notice dt. 16.10.104.

4          O.P. M/s Aruna construction appeared and filed W.S.

                        It is submitted that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action. The case is barred under Contract Act and T.P. Act. Complainant has suppressed material facts because O.P. replied the notice properly on 27.10.2014 to the complainant and his advocate.

            one flat of 3 BHK was already handed over in the 1^st week of December 2013 for carrying out wooden work inside, at his own cost and raised Rs. 1,92,118/- for extra work done inside on his request but the complainant did not pay the same. O.P. has replied that if the wooden work has been done inside by the complainant, O.P. will complete some minor work of fitting of water tap.

            It is admitted that possession letter dt. 03.05.2015 was issued to the complainant which was received on 12.05.2015, How he had performed Grih Puja much earlier in the month of January which could not be possible in absence of actual possession. The letter of possession is formal in nature.

            O.P. has denied the other allegation that one more flat was promised to be given to the complainant.

            Therefore, there is no deficiency in service.

Anx-A copy of Grih Pravesh Invitation.

Anx-B Copy of Legal reply notice dt. 25/27-10-2014.

                                                                       

F I N D I N G S

5          We perused the record and documents filed.

            We hold that complainant is the owner of land sold to O>P. in consideration of one 3 BHK flat for this entered into Development Agreement. The agreement is nothing but a contract for sale of property for gain. Therefore, we hold that complainant is not a consumer and dispute is also not consumer dispute rather it is breach of terms and condition of the sale agreement cum development agreement.

6          Thus, owing to the above reason, we hold that this case is not maintainable under C.P. Act and there is no cause of action for the present case.

            Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.

            O.C. is directed to deposit the record in the Record Room.