Judgment : Dt.18.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Arun Bera, s/o Santosh Bera, residing at 17, Baishali Par, P.O.-Bansdroni, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 084 against Smt. Aditi (Debnath) Sarkar, wife of Mintu Sarkar, residing at Q34, Kamdahari, Taltala, P.O.-Garia, Kolkata-700 084, OP, praying for refund of advance of Rs.50,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant intended to purchase a flat measuring about 669 sq.ft. super built up area on the first floor of premises No.44/1, Brahmapur Nath Para, P.S.-Bansdroni, Kolkata-700 084 by virtue of an agreement at a total consideration of Rs.15,20,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- a advance on 17.5.2012 by an account payee cheque bearing No.816347 dt.17.5.2012, drawn on Andhra Bank. OP issued a money receipt to that effect. OP failed to exeute any agreement for sale. Complainant informed the OP through letter dt.5/1/2013 that as the building has been fully constructed, OP can execute a sale deed in respect of the flat by accepting the balance consideration money of Rs.14,70,000/-. OP alleged that Complainant wanted to refund the advance amount since the month of June, 2012. OP deliberately willfully purposefully neglected to execute the agreement for sale. So, Complainant is entitled to get refund of advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant requested for refund of the amount to OP. But OP did not return the money, so, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OP has stated that the complaint is time barred. This OP has stated that the question made for making conveyance deed does not arise. There did not take place any agreement for sale between the Complainant and the OP. OP has admitted that Complainant had expressed his intention to purchase the flat and advanced a token sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter  Complainant expressed his disagreement to acquire the property and confirmed that he would not enter into any agreement for sale and asked for refund of money and so the agreement for sale could not be executed.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein the Complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OPs filed a petition praying for treating the written version as evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.50,000/-.

            On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply, it appears that payment of Rs.50,000/- by Complainant to the OP has been admitted. However, there is no agreement for sale filed. Further, there is no mention of the development of property by the OP. OP is one Aditi Debnath, who has admitted in her written version that Complainant agreed to purchase one flat from her. But, subsequently Complainant did not agree to that proposal and he did not enter into agreement for sale. Since there is no question of deficiency of service the cause factum of development has not been placed before this Forum, we are of the view that this Forum does not have jurisdiction for the complaint where simpliciter refund of money has been prayed. Since there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, Consumer Protection Act cannot involve.

            Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/79/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.