This is a complaint made by Amitava Bose, S/o late Anil Krishna Bose, 400/7, Radha Housing Complex, P.-Dhalua, Mukundapur, Kolkata-700 152, against Sri Prodip Das, proprietor of The Graphs, 23/54, Gariahat Road, Golpark, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029, praying for direction upon the OP to handover the possession of the flat which was booked or to return the entire money to the petitioner at a time and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant wanted to purchase a flat for which he entered into an agreement with the OP on 30.11.2000 and booked a flat measuring about 1100 sq.ft  for a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-. It was agreed that the flat would be handed-over after payment of the total consideration money. Since 2000 Complainant approached OP on many occasions for delivery of the possession, but, of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the material allegations of the Complainant. OP has admitted that there was an agreement between him and the Complainant, but, has submitted that during the construction work a Govt. notification was made due to which the land where the construction was to be made was acquired by the company and so the project could not be completed. Further, OP has submitted that he suffered loss and so he failed to complete the project. OP has also stated that Complainant after the execution of the agreement i.e. on 30.11.2006 did not make any correspondence with the OP for refunding of the money. In the circumstances, OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

 Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP filed questionnaire. Complainant replied to the questionnaire of the OP and OP also filed evidence to which questionnaire were put up by the Complainant and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for handing-over the possession of the flat which was booked and or return the entire amount to the Complainant with interest. In this regard, it appears that Complainant has not mentioned as to how much he paid to the OP. This reveals that he is not sure himself as to what amount he paid to the OP. Xerox copy of the document which has been filed reveal that two receipts to the tune of Rs.22,500/- were issued by the OP. However, on the contrary in the agreement for sale, Complainant has made a claim that he paid Rs.1,57,500/-. This agreement is dated 30.11.2000. But, contrary to it there is Xerox copy which reveals that the payment were made by the Complainant on 30.12.2005 and on 5.1.2006. So, either the agreement for sale is true of the receipts.

             Further, it appears that Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no material mentioned in the complaint petition or in affidavit-in-chief establishing the agreement for claim of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. In the circumstances this prayer cannot be allowed.

             The prayer for refund of entire amount paid by the Complainant with interest, it appears to be vague and ambiguous and hence it cannot be allowed.

              Finally, Complainant has claimed litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Since Complainant failed to establish the main grounds for the relief the question of granting litigation cost does not arise. Accordingly, it is clear that Complainant failed to establish the allegations which he brought in the complaint petition is baseless .

Hence,

ordered

            CC/190/2016 is dismissed on contest.