| Final Order / Judgement | DATE OF FILING : 04.04.2016. DATE OF S/R : 17.05.2016. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28.07.2017. Sri Argha Das, son of Sri Gauranga Das, residing at 57, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane, P.O. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, District Howrah, PIN 711106. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT. Sujal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., a wing of Sujal Impex Ltd. ( a company limited by shares and registered under the Companies Act of 1956 ) being represented by its Director, Sri Manoj Gupta, son of Sri Mahesh Chandra Gupta, having its office at 18/19, Dr. Abani Dutta Gupta, Salkia, P.S. Golabari, District Howrah, PIN 711106…………………………………………………………...OPPOSITE PARTY. P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ). F I N A L O R D E R - This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sri Argha Das, praying for a direction upon the o.p., to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on receipt of agreed amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in respect of payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.09.2014 and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs. .
- The case of the petitioner is that he entered into a money transaction with the o.p. absolutely on good faith for the purpose of purchasing a show room from the o.p. company and the petitioner is a budding business and for the purpose of opening a car / bike show room he approached the o.p. represented by one of its owner cum partner cum director, Manoj Gupta, and booked a shop room being no. 14 measuring 150 sq. ft. in the ground floor lying with municipal holding no. 13/14, Madhab Ghosh Road, Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Howrah, and he wanted to purchase the said space for running the business to maintain his livelihood.
- It was agreed between the part that the o.p. sell the shop room to the petitioner at a total consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs out of which the petitioner paid Rs. 1 lakhs on 05.08.2014, Rs. 50,000/- on 15.9.2014, Rs. 1,03,700/- and Rs. 1,40,000/- on 26.09.2014 totaling Rs. 3,93,700/- to the o.p. There was no separate written agreement between the parties and the o.p. issued money receipt after receiving the money expect in case of Rs. 50,000/- for which no money receipt given and the petitioner prayed for the same.
- Though the petitioner was ready and willing to take his shop room executed and registered in his favour yet the o.p. avoided him and with a view to grap more money the o.p. not only denied the payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.9.2014 but submitted that the price of the shop room is Rs. 20 lakhs as there is no written agreement. So the petitioner has no other alternative but to file this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegation s made against him and submitted that the case of the petitioner is based on false facts and it is a manufactured story and is liable to be dismissed because the petitioner has no cause of action though he submitted that there was a talk between him and the petitioner regarding purchase of the case mentioned shop room at a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs and the shop room measuring 100 sq. ft. inclusive 25% super built up area. The petitioner already paid Rs. 3,43,700/- to the o.p. and he issued money receipt for the same but he completely denied that the total consideration was settled at Rs. 10 lakhs. The o.p. further submitted that as per talk the total consideration fixed Rs. 20 lakhs out of which the petitioner would pay Rs. Rs. 40% but did not pay the same and thus the proposed transaction stood cancelled and he told the petitioner to take back his money but he did not and file this case. He is ready to refund the money amounting to Rs. 3,43,700/- and not Rs. 3,93,700/-. There was no agreement for sale between them and the complainant is not a consumer and he is not a service provider and the monetary transaction took place between them stood cancelled and revoked as the petitioner did not pay the money in time.
6. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination : - Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit in evidence along with documents in the form of money receipts issued by o.p. Sujal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its directors Manoj Gupta and the money receipts showing that there was payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 15.8.2014 and again on 26.09.2014 there was payment of Rs. 1,03,700/- by the petitioner to the o.p. and again on 26.2.2014 there was payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- by the petitioner to the o.p. and thus there was a total payment of Rs. 3,43,700/- by the petitioner to the o.p. Besides the money receipts, there is no agreement filed by the petitioner the said shop room that both parties agreed for the said transaction i.e., the o.p. to sell room to the petitioner at a total consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs out of which the petitioner already paid Rs. 3,43,700/-. The o.p. on the other hand submitted before the Forum that there was a talk between him and the petitioner regarding purchase of the case mentioned shop room at a consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs and the shop room measuring 100 sq. ft. inclusive of 25% super built up area and the petitioner already paid Rs. 3,43,700/- to him and he issued money receipt to that effect. He categorically denied that there was ever any talk of sale of the shop room at a consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the money receipt also there is no mention that out of total consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs as stated by petitioner or Rs. 20 lakhs as said by O.P. and as stated by the parties there was payment of Rs. 3,43,700/- by the petitioner to the o.p. The petitioner further submitted that he made payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.99.2014 and no money receipt was issued to him and no document has been produced by the petitioner that he made such payment. The petitioner, Argha Das, filed one complaint before the Inspector of Golabari P.S. against the o.p., Manoj Gupta wherein he stated that he has paid Rs. 3,93,700/- including the disputed payment of Rs. 50,000/- paid on 15.09.2014.
- In the instant case the petitioner prayed for direction on the o.p. to issue money receipt in respect of Rs. 50,000/- paid by him on 15.09.2014 and also he prayed for a further direction on the o.p. to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner at the agreed amount of consideration being Rs. 10 lakhs and also he prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/- and also prayed before the Forum to pass any other order or orders providing relief / reliefs to the complainant under law and equity. In the instant case the petitioner though submitted that there was agreement between the parties but no such document has been produced before this Forum and there is no mention in the money receipt as to such agreement either orally or in the form of document and also no mention in the money receipt about the amount of consideration fixed for the sale of the shop room either Rs. 10 lakhs as stated by the petitioner or Rs. 20 lakhs as stated by the o.p. Thus in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence this Forum cannot direct the o.p. to execute and register the shop room to the petitioner at a consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs after receiving the balance consideration. However, when this Forum finds that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 3,43,700/- to the o.p. in the month of August & September, 2014 then he is entitled refund of the said amount with interest as per law of equity.
- In respect to the prayer of the petitioner for getting compensation this Forum finds that the o.p. since August & September, 2014 though received the money and enjoyed the same yet neither refunded the money nor made any interaction with him in the form of sending letters disclosing the facts of his annoyance as the petitioner did not pay him the due sum and get the deed registered in his favour even if taken granted that there was agreement to pay Rs. 20 lakhs by the petitioner to the o.p. Thus the petitioner obviously suffer mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to compensation and he is also entitled to litigation costs because the o.p. compelled him to file this case, otherwise, his advance sum would have remained out of his pocket without interest and the o.p. would have illegal gain out of such transaction.
In the result, the application succeeds. Court fee paid is correct. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. No. 129 of 201 6 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. The petitioner though not entitled to get relief as per prayer ‘B’ & ‘C’ of his petition but as per law of equity he is entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs. 3,43,700/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of the same that is August – September, 2014 till realization. The O.P. be directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of this order. The o.p. is further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- would go to the petitioner as compensation and the rest Rs. 25,000/- would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this district and the o.p. is to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs and the above payment would be paid within one month from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the final order in execution. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( B. D. Nanda ) President, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
