Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/14/52

Smt. Maya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The K. k. singh And Associates Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amardeep Jha

13 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complainant Smt. Maya Devi filed this complaint for a claim of Rs. 3,15,000/- with 18% interest and compensation of Rs 70,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

2          The case of the complainant is that she paid Rs 3,15,000/- for residential complex as an advance money out of the total amount of Rs 12,35,000/- on 07-03-2007 and O.P. assured to execute sale deed within two months. O.P. executed the deed on 29-12-2008 after much delay and assured to start construction immediately but O.P. failed to construct the complex till today.

            Complainant reached to the land purchased where the construction was to start, with her husband and Civil Engineer to measure the land and it comes to the knowledge of the complainant the O.P. is not right title holder of the piece of land allotted and sold.

            Complainant approached the O.P. to raise the issue and requested to return the advance money but O.P. has not given any positive response.

            Thus, it is clear that O.P. has received the amount and grabbed the amount.

            Complainant served legal notice on 19-04-2014 but O.P. has not replied.

            The cause of action arose on 04-05-2014 when the stipulated time in the legal notice elapsed.

3          Complainant filed the following documents in support

Anx-1- Copy of the Money receipt of O.P. of Rs. 3,15,000/- dt. 07-03-2007.

Anx-2 and 2/1 Copies of sale deed and registration certificate.

Anx-3- Copy of the legal notice.

 

4          O.P. M/s  K.K. Singh and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Appeared and filed W.S.

                        It is submitted that the complaint in not maintainable and there is no cause of action. It is also submitted that the forum has no jurisdiction to decide the title and declare any sale deed illegal, void and inoperative.

            It is admitted that money was paid on 07-03-2007 and sale deed was executed on 29-12-2008.

            It is submitted that the recovery of money is time barred of 3 year and relief cannot be granted.

            The case is based on assumption of fact not on the fact in reality.

            It is also submitted that Managing Director K.K. Singh now no more and other Directors of the company have no knowledge about the matters pleaded in the complaint.

            It is further submitted that the allegation even it be admitted, it makes out no case for redressal by this forum.

            The complainant for some other reason has changed her mind not to have residential complex constructed on the land and so she did not pay the rest amount for construction of residential complex and to get back the amount which has already been adjusted against the sale of the land, and thereafter she has raised the bogus claim.

            Therefore, there is no cause of action for this case and liable to be dismissed.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

5          We perused the record and hold that the complainant is a consumer since he has paid advance money for residential complex as assured by O.P. and the dispute is also a consumer dispute.

6          From the facts of the complaint and W.S. of the O.P. it is a admitted position that Rs. 3,15,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the O.P. as an advance money out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 12,37,000/- in the year 2007 on 07.03.2007and the O.P. as a first step towards the residential complex, a piece of land was registered on 29.12.2008 in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, neither the O.P. has sent any demand notice for further payment nor the complainant had paid any amount.

            Now, the complainant wants to return back of advance money on the ground that the O.P. has no title to transfer the land as it comes to her knowledge. No piece of document has been filed to show that O.P. has no title over the land which was registered in the name of the complainant. Therefore, on this account she wants the return back of money with interest. It is the contention of the O.P. that the complainant without any valid ground challenge the entitement of the O.P. and back the money as it is time barred.

7          It is the admitted fact by the O.P. that the complainant has paid advance money of Rs. 3,15,000/- and also admitted the land has been transferred in the name of the complainant for the project of the residential complex. The contention of the O.P. that it is time barred cannot be accepted because both the sides have proceeded further towards completion of the contract for providing service on payment.

            Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back her money if she is not satisfied but without interest because she has also not come up with clean hands as regards further payment towards completion of the residential complex subject to retransfer of the piece of land registered in her name to the O.P.  

            Both the sides have to bear the cost of the case and complainant is not entitled for any compensation since she is also guilty for the non completion of the project.

8          Accordingly we allow the part claim of the complainant as regards Rs. 3,15,000/-(Three Lac Fifteen Thousand Only) without any interest subject to the retransfer of the registered land in favour of the O.P. and O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 3,15,000/-(Three Lac Fifteen Thousand Only) to the complainant  within 60 days of passing of this order.

            The cost of the retransfer of the land shall be beared by the both the sides half-half.