Judgment : Dt.16.11.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Subimal Bakshi @ Subimal Ch. Bakshi, son of late Birendra Kumar Bakshi, residing at 4/4, Bhuban Mohan Roy Road, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 008 against Sonama Construction, a proprietorship Company represented by its sole proprietor Binay Pal Choudhury, having its registered office at 705, Kailash Ghosh Road, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 08, OP No.1 and Sri Binoy Pal Choudhury, son of Sri Nirapada Pal Choudhury, 705, Kailash Ghosh Road, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 08, OP No.2, praying for direction upon the OPs to reimburse the forfeit amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and another direction upon the OPs for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief are that OPs are service providers. There took place an agreement for rebuilding of the schedule premises. As per the development agreement owner was entitled to Rs.8,20,000/- to be paid in three parts. Thereafter the possession was handed over by the OPs on 10.7.2015. But the possession was neither in conformity with the agreement nor the amount to be paid as forfeit money was paid. After that Complainant wrote several letters for reimbursement of the forfeiture money amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- which includes corporation dues and other incidentals. But the OPs started giving lukewarm response and went on promising for payment of forfeiture amount. Complainant requested the OPs to pay the forfeited amount. But of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 and OP No.2 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further these OPs have stated that Complainant after fully realizing his due and after getting possession of the flats and after getting of extra works done in the flat according to his wishes has received, acknowledged and accepted the said possession letter. OPs have stated that the extra work done by them amounted to Rs.2,21,560/-. OPs spent Rs.90,000/- extra. So, OPs prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP No.1 & 2 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OPs filed a petition for treating the written version as evidence against which Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs to reimburse the forfeit amount of Rs.2,20,000/- which was agreed between them as per the development agreement. On the contrary, OPs by filing their written version has stated that the amount of Rs.2,21,560/- was spent by OPs as extra work like Rs.10,000/- for gummer wood front door, Rs.24,000/- for two pieces of sal frames, Rs.34,560/- for box grill, Rs.18,000/- for two pieces of collapsible gates and Rs.45,000/- for aluminum steel window. Further, on perusal of the development agreement, it appears that the developer will provide wooden make door finished with wood primer and necessary fittings as two numbers of chitkani, one aluminium ring, etc. There is no mention of gummer wood in respect of window. There is mention of steel windows fitted with MS grill. Further, there is no mention of two collapsible gates. There is no mention of box grill of aluminium steel window. So, it can be presumed that Complainant got the works done by the OPs and the money due to him to be paid by OPs were spent in that.
Accordingly, we find that Complainant is not entitled to these prayers.
In addition, Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-,
In our view, since Complainant failed to prove the main allegation, he is not entitled for any compensation and litigation cost.
Hence,
ordered
CC/188/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.
