Date of filing :24.11.2017
Judgment : Dt.26.3.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Kamala Kanta Maity alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (1) Smt. Maliya Dey and (2) Smt. Anjulika Saha.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that being desirous to have his own accommodation, the Complainant contacted the opposite party No.1, Developer, who was developing a plot of land at the premises No.327/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata-700 014, P.S.-Haridevpur, Dist.- South 24-Parganas, Mouza-Ramchandrapur, J.L.No.31, Touzi Nos.416B/1, L.R.Khatian No.109/1, R.S.Khatian No.599, 601, 602 and 605, by constructing a multistoried building as per terms of the Development Agreement dt.3.2.2014 executed by and between land owner and Developer i.e. OP No.2 & OP No1. The Complainant have further stated that the Complainant visited the said premises and being satisfied with the progress of work entered into an Agreement for sale on 14.8.2015 with the OPs and paid Rs.2,00,000/- by cash to OP No.1 on the same date as per payment schedule embodied thereon but the Complainant observed that even after receiving the said amount the Developer did not take any initiative to expedite the construction work. It is further stated by the Complainant that he repeatedly knocked the door of the Developer enquiring progress of the work but got false assurance regarding construction work and lastly on 29.8.2016, when the Complainant made further query regarding progress of the work he was physically assaulted by the OP No.1. The Complainant has further stated that finding no other alternative the Complainant on 29.8.2016 cancelled the Agreement for sale vide a letter dt.14.8.2015 and requested the OP No.1 to refund Rs.2,00,000/- within one month which was deposited with OP No.1 and subsequently issued reminder on 4.10.2016 and sent legal notice on 14.3.2017 but OP No.1 paid no heed to that request as well as to legal notice. Hence, the Complainant has filed this complaint praying for direction upon the OP No.1 to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per month, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
Notices were served but the OPs did not turn up and, therefore, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing vide Order No.5 dt.29.1.2018.
The Complainant adduced affidavit-in-chief and annexed Agreement for sale dt.14.8.2015 letter dt.29.8.2016 issued by the Complainant to OP No.1, Advocate’s letter dt.4.10.2016 issued by the Complainant to OP No.1 and a letter dt.14.3.2017.
Points for determination
- Whether the Complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Point No.1 –
The Complainant has claimed to have entered into an Agreement for sale on 14.8.2015 with the OPs in respect of a flat lying and situated at 327/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata-700 014, P.S.-Haridevpur, South 24-Parganas, at a consideration of Rs.17,50,000/- out of which the Complainant have paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP No.1 Developer by cash on the date of execution of Agreement for sale dt.14.8.2015 which was executed by and between the Complainant and the OP No.1 Memo of Consideration of the said Agreement as filed by the Complainant supports such averment of the Complainant.
The Complainant has further stated that being disgusted with the progress of the construction work he decided to cancel the said Agreement for sale dt.14.8.2015 and to get refund of the deposited amount with agreed interest and sent a letter to the OP No.1 to that effect. It is evident that the Complainant himself has stated that he had cancelled the agreement for sale dt.14.8.2015. Since the Complainant cancelled the Agreement for sale dt.14.8.2015 the Consumer vis-a-vis service provider relationship was ceased to exist. Therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
Point No.1 decided accordingly.
Point No.2
Since Point No.1 decided negative there is no scope to go into the merit of complaint case.
In the result, the Consumer Complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/669/2017 is dismissed being not maintainable.
The Complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Court of law on self same cause of action.
