Judgment : Dt.3.8.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Amit Gangopadhyay, son of Sri Sibesh Chandra Gangopadhyay, residing at Flat No.1-A, Regent Greens, 196-D/2, Picnic Garden Road, P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata-700 039 against –(1) R.D.B. Builders Pvt. Ltd.,  having its registered office at 10^th floor, 3-A, Auckland Place, P.S.-Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017, OP No.2, (2) Falak Properties Pvt. Ltd., OP No.2, (3) Debaki Constructions Pvt. Ltd., OP No.3, (4) Nikhar Traders Pvt. Ltd., OP No.4, (5) Rashmi Towers Pvt. Ltd., OP No.5, (6) Apeksha Commercial Pvt. Ltd., OP No.6, (7) Anurodh Agencies Pvt. Ltd., OP No.7, (8) Ruchi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., OP No.8 and (9) Priti Tie-up Pvt. Ltd., OP No.9, having their respective registered office at No.3-A, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata-700 001, praying for direction upon the OPs to execute and register the deed of conveyance on receiving the balance consideration amount and direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost, and a direction to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,27,000/- as compensation for allotment of lesser measurement.

            Facts in brief are that OPs are private limited companies and run their business as promoters cum developer. On 13.11.2004, Complainant entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing the flat No.1A on the 1^st floor of the new building, Block No.B measuring about 974 sq.ft., situated at 196/D/2, Picnics Garden Road, P.S.-Kasba, Kolkata-700 039 and more fully described in the schedule below. Total consideration of the flat was fixed Rs.11,98,994/- out of which Complainant paid Rs.1,80,000/-. The agreement for sale contains various terms and conditions. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,39,045/- before June, 2005. But possession was not handed over. In the month of April, 2006, after long expiry of the stipulated period for handing over the possession Complainant was not given possession of the agreed area as per the agreement for sale. OPs agreed to deliver possession of 974 sq.ft to the Complainant. But anyhow Complainant was handed over possession of only 822 sq.ft. i.e. 152 sq.ft. lesser of the agreed area of the agreement for sale. Complainant knew that OPs are authorised promoters under the Govt. of West Bengal. Complainant also knew that there was some gross anomalies in between the agreement submitted by the OP1 to the Housing Dept. and the agreement executed by the OP No.1 in favour of the Complainant. Complainant filed an application before the authorized officer. Complainant filed one writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court where some directions were given by the Hon’ble High Court. But, since OPs did not complied the terms and conditions of the agreement, Complainant filed this case.

            OPs did not contest the case by filing written version. So, the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for registration of the sale deed in his favour.

            In this regard, it appears that Complainant has not filed any original document. Copy of agreement for sale has been filed as Annexure A  which reveal that the name of R.D.B. Builders is mentioned here and the name of the purchaser’s name i.e. the name of the Complainant. Further, Xerox copies reveal that Amit Gangopadhya has signed on all the pages. But no builder or promoter has signed on the agreement for sale. Further, it appears from the Annexure B that there are Xerox copies of the receipts showing that Complainant paid Rs.11,09,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to the R.D.B.Builders and three receipts which appear to be signed by the Cashier on behalf of the R.D.B.Builders. Original receipts are not filed. There are other Xerox copies of receipts also which reveal that Complainant paid some money to R.D.B.Builders.

            On perusal of the cause title of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has filed this complainant on nine Pvt. Ltd. Companies out of which, R.D.B. Builders is No.1. So, the names of other eight Pvt. Ltd. Companies are found missing. This reflects that Complainant did not approach this Forum with clean hands and if that be the situation, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/01/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.