Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order :  23.06.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To deliver the possession and execution of Sale deed after receiving the balance consideration money of Rs. 1,95,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Ninety Five Thousand only ) with respect to Flat No. 101, of  Nandan Apartment.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Five Thousand only ) as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is consumer and buyer of the Flat No. 101, on ground floor of Nandan Apartment, situated at Boring Patliputra Road, P.S.- S.K.Puri, District – Patna having survey plot no. 819, thana no. 4, khata no. 137, measuring an area of 920 Sq. ft. super built up area.
2. The opposite parties are the seller and owner of the Flat No. 101, on ground floor of Nandan Apartment, situated at Boring Patliputra Road, P.S.- S.K.Puri, District – Patna having survey plot no. 819, thana no. 4, khata no. 137, measuring an area of 920 Sq. ft. super built up area.
3. The opposite parties are in legal necessary of money for personal purposes and hence they as well as his builder had proclaimed for sale of the said Flat No. 101, on ground floor of Nandan Apartment, situated at Boring Patliputra Road, P.S.- S.K.Puri, District – Patna having survey plot no. 819, thana no. 4, khata no. 137, measuring an area of 920 Sq. ft. super built up area.
4. In response opposite parties as well as his builder advertised for sale of said flats complainant has approached and negotiated for purchase of the said flat.
5. The negotiation for sale was finalized between complainant and opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lac only ) and complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/- ( Rs. Three Lac Five Thousand only) as earnest money for purchase of the said flat and opposite party no. 1 namely Sri Padamdhari Sinha executed a Deed of Agreement of Sale on 27.02.2005 for the said flat. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
6. According to the agreement it is agreed between both parties that balance consideration money amount i.e. Rs. 1,95,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Ninety Five Thousand only ) shall be paid by the vendee to vendor within one year from date of execution of this agreement or at the time of registration.
7. According to the agreement It is further agreed between both the parties that possession if said flat will be delivered by the vendor to the vendee after payment of full consideration money.
8. According to the agreement it is further agreed between both the parties that the option for registration will lie with the vendee and the same is agreed by the vendor and in case the vendor fails or neglects to complete the sale, the vendee will be at liberty to take legal actions.
9. According to the agreement complainant is always ready to pay balance consideration money amount i.e. Rs. 1,95,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Ninety Five Thousand only ) to opposite parties but the opposite parties always refused to receive the amount.
10. The complainant several times requested for registration of sale deed but opposite parties always refused to registration of sale deed and possession of the flat.
11. Despite repeated personal request and reminder opposite parties fail to registration of sale deed and possession of the flat and neither refunded the earnest money of Rs. 3,05,000/- ( Rs. Three Lac five Thousand only ) to complainant.
12. Through this legal notice you people are requested to registration of sale deed and possession of the flat otherwise my client shall be free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against you people for the acts of commission and omission.
13. Under the facts and circumstances stated above it is clear that , according to agreement opposite parties refused to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Ninety Five thousand only ) and fails to registration of sale deed and possession of the flat which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services for which complainant suffers great physical, mental and irreparable loss and injury hence this bonafide complaint.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 and 3 separate show cause in which submissions are somewhat similar which are being discussed herein below :-

1. The complainant petition is not maintainable either before law or on facts.
2. The legal procedure has been available but complaint has not opted and he filed before the forum to save limitation and this complaint petition is hopelessly barred by limitation.
3. The developer of opposite party no. 1 has construction a multi storied building namely Nandan Apartment in the year 1990 from Prachi Builders and holding Pvt. Ltd. and the said builder has completed the above project in the year 1990 and sell the flat on his share. The opposite party has sold two or three flat in his share at that time and rest of the flat has owned and possessed by the opposite party.
4. Flat no. 101 was constructed by opposite party no. 1 without sanction map in the year 1990 – 91 and he rent out the flat and living by tenants resides there and situated at basement of the above apartment.
5. The opposite party no. 1 was seriously ill in the year 2006 and died on 17^th April, 2007. He never disclosed about any agreement to the other opposite parties. So the case is not maintainable having no jurisdiction of law.
6. The opposite party no. 1 has not disclosed to other opposite party about alleged agreement has been done to complaint.
7. The complaint petition is partially correct and he is not a consumer and buyer and other allegation are correct.
8. The complaint petition is partially in correct, the opposite party is not the seller of the flat and other allegation are correct.
9. The complaint petition is totally wrong and concocted. The opposite party no. 1 had never any necessity legal necessary of money. He is a reputed person in PATNA and he has an Apartment at Ranchi also and he never advertised for sale of the flat.
10. The complaint petition are totally wrong, false, baseless and concocted and he never negotiation for sale of flat and he never get earnest money and he never executed alleged deed of agreement dated 27.02.2005 without concerning of other opposite party and legal heirs and he never agree to the complainant for registration of the deed.
11. The allegation are totally false and concocted. The opposite party never talk to the complainant about full consideration and never gone date of registration of flat and complainant never met with other opposite parties and they reside at Boring Canal Road at Dharhra house and other allegation are totally false.
12. The complainant has never come in Dharhra House and he never meet the opposite parties and really complainant has served the legal notice and reply has already been sent on behalf of opposite party no. 2 & 3 but the reply notice has been for gotten now and they totally against the averment made in notice. Hence the other allegation are incorrect.
13. The opposite parties are a bonafide person of the society and so the complainant filed case after reply of notice, so they suffer great harassment physical and mental pressure of the opposite parties.
14. The document filed by complainant has totally false and incorrect legal notice. The allegation of the Complainant wrote two letters are totally false because opposite party no. 1 has totally bed ridden in the year 2006 and agreement of the flat was not know to the other opposite parties.

We have perused the entire materials available on the record and have heard the parties at length.

Prior to discussing the merit of the case we would like to state that parties has placed on record that the opposite party no. 1Sri Padamdhari Sinha died on 17^th April, 2007 but the complainant has impleaded him as opposite party no. 1 and in the petition he has not mentioned that he is now no more but from the written statements it has come to the notice of the forum that he is now no more and even after death the complainant has not deleted his name by substituting his heir and now in our opinion his name deemed to have been deleted.

From the submissions of the complainant made in the complaint petition and counter submissions of the opposite parties made in the written statement we are of the opinion that the complainant has not placed on record any other documents except the Agreement For Sale alleged to have been made with the opposite party no. 1 on 27.02.2005 and thereafter he has also mentioned about two letters written in year 2006 by him to the opposite party no. 1 but not mentioned the manner in which these letters were dispatched to the opposite party no. 1.

Thereafter a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the opposite party no. 1 on 03.02.2010 and thus it appears that he had not made any correspondence in the mater from 28.12.2006 to 02.02. 2010 and no plausable explanation has been given nor any condonation petition has been filed for condoning the delay of more than three years.

Thus this complaint petition is dismissed on the point of limitation, which had not been explained there will be no orders as to costs.

                                        Member                                                         President