Judgment : Dt.5.1.2018
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a complaint made by (1) Sri Prasanta Das, son of late Prafulla Kumar Das, (2) SSSmt. Bulbul Das, wife of Sri Prasanta Das, both of 260, Vidyasagar Sarani. Amantrani Park, P.O. & P.S.- Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 150, Dist.- South 24-Parganas against The Managing Director, OAS Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ‘Sonar Gaon’ project, Bibirhat Chatta-Dakghar Road, Bibirhat, Bakhrahat, PS –Bishnupur, Dist.- South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-700 034 and City office at 522A/1, D.H.Road, 1st floor, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 034, OP, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to execute the agreement for sale in respect of the banglow being No. Row House(1) in the Sonar Gaon project, proposed to be built at Bibirhat, Bakhrahat, P.S.- Bishnupur, Dist.-South 24 Parganas and to direct the OP to register the deed of conveyance after receiving the balance consideration amount from the Complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of.
Facts in brief are that Complainants after going through the advertisement in the Ananda Bazar Patrika, became interested to book a banglow in the Sonar Gaon Project and as per the said advertisement approached the Officer concerned through the C21 Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. for booking the banglow being No.Row House (1) in the said Sonar Gaon. As per instruction of the authority of C21 Advisory Service Pvt. Ltd. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the said C21 Advisory Service Pvt. Ltd. by an Account Payee Cheque on 21.6.2016 and also paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- by cheque. Thereafter, Complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by an account payee cheque of ICICI Bank and also paid Rs.1,00,000/-. After repeated requests the OP agreed to refund the entire money of Rs.4,60,000/- but declined to make allotment of the said banglow No.Row House (1) in the Sonar Gaon project. After repeated requests OP did not turn up to execute the agreement for sale of the aforesaid banglow and also did not refund the entire money as taken by him. Complainant finding no other alternatives sent Advocate’s letter on 11.5.2017. Complainant was always ready and willing to pay the rest consideration money, so, Complainant filed this case.
OP did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
In this regard, it appears from the prayer portion of the complaint petition that Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to execute the agreement for sale in respect of the banglow and also a direction upon the OP to register the deed of conveyance after receiving the balance consideration money. Further, it appears from the paragraph 10 of the complaint petition that Complainant had only paid Rs.4,10,000/- and he did not pay the rest of the money. Complainant is silent about the fact as to whether OP returned Rs.4,10,000/- to the Complainant. He has not made any allegation for refund of the money. He has only stated that a deed of conveyance should be made in his favour at the alleged banglow. Furthermore, copies of the documemnts have been filed, which reveal that Complainant paid Rs.4,10,000/-. But since the Complainant has not prayed for relief of return of the money paid by him we cannot on our own make such order. So far as the direction upon the OP for entering into an agreement for sale and further direction to make a conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant are concerned, we are afraid that a property having consideration value of Rs.19,50,000/- can be purchased by paying only Rs.4,10,000/-. As Complainant has not come with clean hands, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
Hence,
ordered
CC/415/2017 and the same is dismissed
