This is a complaint made by one Sri Sankar Prasad Majhi, son of Sri Ram Krishna Majhi, 22, R.N.Das Road, Dhakuria, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 031 against (1) Sri Kaushik Das, son of Late Nityananda Das, 52, Beni Banerjee Avenue, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 031 and (2) Smt. Soma Roy, daughter of Late Nityananda Das, wife of Sri Biswajit Roy, 52, Beni Banerjee Avenue, Kolkata-700 031, praying for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.3,40,000/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service.
Facts in brief are that being inspired by the proposal of the OP No.1 Sri Kaushik Das for purchasing a self contained residential flat having a super built up area of 850 sq.ft. consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing cum dining, one kitchen, two toilets and two balconies on the second floor of the house building at 52, Beni Banerjee Avenue, under P.S.- Old Kasba new P.S.-Garfa, entered into an agreement for sale on 19th August, 2011. Complainant advanced a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and thereafter paid Rs.1,40,000/-out of total consideration of Rs.12,75,000/-. OP Kaushik Das executed the agreement on 19.8.2011 and assured to execute the sale deed of the said flat in the name of the Complainant by himself and his said sister Smt.Soma Roy, OP No.2.
Complainant requested on several occasions the OP to take the balance money and hand over possession and register the flat in his name. After that Complainant asked the OP to refund the money which he has paid. Having no other alternative, Complainant requested the OP to take balance money but of no use. On 8.3.2016, Complainant through his Advocate issued a legal notice. But, despite that OP did not refund the money. So, Complainant filed this case.
On the basis of the above facts, complaint was admitted and notices were issued. But OPs did not appear. So, the case was 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 as prayed for.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant had prayed for refund of Rs.3,40,000/- which he paid, with interest of Rs.1,00,000/-. A copy of the agreement for sale is filed which is dated 19.8.2011. On perusal of this agreement, it appears that there was an agreement between the parties for sale of flat having an area of 850 sq.ft. This agreement also reveals that OPs received Rs.2,00,000/-. Though the case is heard ex-parte, but it appears that the case is between the Complainant and the OPs who have entered into agreement in which there is no developmental agreement on the record to establish that there was deficiency in services. So, this agreement for sale is covered under the provision of specific relief act and is guided by specific performance of the contract.
As such, we are afraid that this Forum has jurisdiction to pass any order over this complaint, despite the fact that the OPs received money from the Complainant.
Hence,
ordered
CC/292/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on ex-parte.
