This is a complaint made by one Rupasri Saha, wife of Sri Goutam Saha, residing a A/19, Bagha Jatin Pally, P.S.-Jadavpur now P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 092, Dist.- South 24-Parganas against (1) Sri Uttam Kumar Naskar, son of Late Ananta Kumar Naskar, residing at No.4/1, Chittaranjan Colony, first floor, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.1, (2) Smt. Malina Saha, wife of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.2, (3) Sri Gouranga Saha, son of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.3, (4) Smt. Krishna Saha, daughter of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.4, (5) Sri Biswanath Saha, son of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.5, (6) Sri Babun Saha, son of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.6, (7) Smt. Subra Saha (Dutta), wife of Late Jyotirmoy Dutta and daughter of Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.7, (8) Smt. Manju Saha (Das), wife of Sri Ashutosh Das and daughter of Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.8, (9) Smt. Sukla Saha (Dey), wife of Sri Bipul Dey, daughter of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.9, (10) Sri Jagannath Saha, son of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.10 and (11) Smt. Tinku Saha (Mahato), wife of Sri Biswanath Mahato, daughter of Late Lal Mohan Saha, OP No.11, praying for (a) delivery of possession of the flat in favour of the Complainant having super built up area of 425 sq.ft., (b) execution and registration of deed of conveyance of the said flat in favour of the Complainant (c) compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with (d) litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a housewife and was desirous of having a flat in the vicinity of her residence. OP is carrying a business in the name and style of M/s Annapurna Construction. By a development agreement dt. 4.3.2012 executed by and between the owners Smt. Malina Saha and others and M/s Annapurna Construction for constructing a building.
Complainant approached the OP for purchasing a flat and an agreement dt.5.3.2014 was executed between the OP, Vendor, and the Complainant having a super built up area of 425 sq.ft. consisting of one bed room, one living cum dining, one kitchen, one bath cum privy, one balcony and one loft in the kitchen or in the bath cum privy, etc. at a consideration of Rs.10,50,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.3,75,000/- as advance at the time of execution of the agreement for sale. Complainant further paid Rs.1,00,000/- to OP No.1 on 7.4.2014 by an account payee cheque. Complainant further states that it was agreed in the said agreement that the OP No.1 would deliver the possession within 15 March, 2015. The agreement for sale was executed on 5.3.2014.
After 15.3.2015 Complainant approached the OP and requested him to handover the possession. But, OP No.1 did not handover the possession. Again, Complainant requested, but of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.3 to 11 filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. Further OP No.3 to 11 has stated that they made a development agreement and also executed power of attorney in favour of OP No.1 and they are ready to cooperate with the Complainant for registration of deed of conveyance. But, developer, OP No.1 is not making the registration deed. They have also stated that developer did not complete the schedule work as agreed upon within the time. OP No.1 has only constructed the super structure. So, OP No.3 to 11 has stated that the order be made against OP No.1.
OP No.1 has also filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. OP No.1 has stated that he never neglected to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. He has also stated that Complainant has filed case without any cogent reason. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum. Further, OP No.1 has stated that Complainant be directed to pay Rs.5,75,000/- which balance consideration money to be paid and OP No.1 is ready to register the flat in favour of the Complainant.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this questionnaire has been filed by the OP No.3 to 11. OP No. has also filed questionnaire wherein he has put questions from Complainant is reflect as to whether he complied the terms and conditions of the agreement. Against this questionnaire Complainant has replied. OP also filed evidence against which Complainant put questions and OP replied.
Main point for determination as to whether Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. In the present case, Complainant has prayed for handing over possession and registration of the flat.
On perusal of the written version as well as affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply by respective parties, it appears that all the OPs are ready and willing to execute the registration, OP No.1 has in clear terms stated that if Complainant pays Rs.5,75,000/- he is ready and willing to handover possession and also register the flat.
In such circumstances, it is clear that virtually there is no dispute. It might be that Complainant did not comply the terms and conditions and did not pay the rest of the money within time and so neither possession was handed over nor registration was made.
As such, we are of the view that if Complainant is directed to pay the rest of the money to the OP No.1 within three months as per the written version, OP No.1 is ready and willing to make registration deed and hand over possession of registration deed.
The prayer for compensation and litigation cost does not warrant to be allowed as because, it appears that Complainant has also delayed in making the balance payment.
Hence,
ordered
CC/176/2016 and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to handover possession of the flat within three months of this order, provided the Complainant pays rest Rs.5,75,000/- to OP No.1 as appearing in the written version and Complainant is ready to pay registration cost and other charges if any. Further OPs are directed to register the flat in favour of the Complainant within this period.
