Judgement

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the opposite party no.1 is a company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act 1956 and is a Promoter/Developer mainly deals with Real Estate business. The opposite party nos.2 is the Chief Managing Director and the opposite party nos.3 is the authorized signatory of opposite party no.1.   The opposite parties deal in providing residential plots of land with basic amenities like Road Network, electric Supply, Water Supply, Road Side Plantation & Land Scape Garden, Fencing and security 24 x 7 hours, Guest House etc. in their projects.  The complainant came to know about the offer through advertisement published in official website of the opposite parties.  Moreover, the opposite parties also advertised about their projects in their Kolkata office and presented a layout of residential plots of different projects at Nagpur, Andaman and Kolkata followed by site visit. Being allured by the aforesaid promises and being satisfied and convinced with such representation made by the opposite parties, the complainant decided to purchase one residential plot of land measuring about 1000 sq. meters being plot no. 01 situated in Survey No.45, 43 Village – Milangram, Tahsil – Diglipur, District – North Andaman, Buddha Estate at a total consideration price of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh) only.  Out of total consideration amount the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) only as advance by issuing a cheque bearing No. 217086 dated 17.05.2014 towards allotment money before execution of the Agreement for Sale.  Thereafter on 21.05.2014, the Agreement for Sale was executed by the parties.  The terms and conditions in the Agreement for Sale dated 21.05.2014 was the opposite parties shall complete the entire process of delivery of possession and Registration of Deed of Conveyance by September, 2017.  The complainant was ready to pay the amount as per schedule of payment to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed and neglected and virtually refused to discharge their part of obligation as per terms and condition of Agreement for Sale.  The complainant visited the site and found that no development work has been initiated and no basic steps have been taken by the opposite parties to complete basic infrastructure and amenities promised by them.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties at Nagpur but no fruitful result yielded.  From the conduct of the opposite parties it was clearly understood that the opposite parties had no intention to deliver the plot with all amenities and / or to register Deed of Conveyance and they carried out the entire exercise with an intention to deceive or defraud the complainant.  However, the opposite parties instead of giving the plot at Andaman offered to book a plot of land at Nagpur.  Accordingly, after observing some formalities another Agreement for Sale dated 07.12.2015 was executed by the parties and a plot of being plot no. 98-107 measuring about 1937.52 + 1937.52 in total 3875.04 sq. ft. out of Kh. No. 116, V.C.I., P.H. No. 71, in Tahasil Hingana (Gramin),  at Mouza-Shirur, Dist.-Nagpur and the price for plot in Nagpur project was fixed at Rs. 91,37,520/-.  The complainant was asked to pay a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards consideration amount of the said plot.  The complainant transferred the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the account of the opposite parties through RTGS vide transaction dated 07.12.2015 the receipt whereof was acknowledged by the opposite parties by issuing money receipt dated 08.12.2015.

It was agreed in the month of March 2019 that the opposite parties  will complete the entire development of the plot and execute the Deed of Conveyance in terms of the Agreement after Eight (8) months  but the opposite parties failed and neglected to keep their promise.  Finding no other alternative the complainant sent a notice through his Advocate but the opposite parties did not pay any head to it.

On physical verification of the site, the complainant came to know that the project is still incomplete and no development done by the opposite parties in terms of their advertisement or Agreement for Sale neither the opposite parties had any intension to do so.  According to the complainant the opposite parties have adopted unfair means of trade practice by making false and misleading representations and they are liable for rendering deficiency in service.  Owing to such reasons the complainant had suffered enormous tribulations for which he claimed compensation interalia with other reliefs.

It transpires from the record that notices were duly served upon all the opposite parties.  In spite of service of notice none of the opposite parties appeared in the case.  So, the case was taken up ex parte as against all the opposite parties.

To prove the complaint, affidavit in chief has been filed by one Shoyeb Alam.  The Said Shoyeb Alam stated on oath that he is authorized representative and tadbirkar of the complainant/Mr. Noor Alam.

No document or authorization letter submitted with the affidavit in chief showing that the complainant Mr. Noor Alam authorized Shoyeb Alam to file or depose in this case. On scrutiny of the record, we find that the name of the complainant is Mr. Noor Alam but the complaint petition was signed by Shoyeb Alam who claimed himself to be authorized representative and tadbirkar of the complainant.  The Said Shoyeb Alam sworn affidavit also as authorized representative and tadbirkar of the complainant. A photocopy of an authorization letter dated 09.11.2020 has been submitted at the time of institution of the case but the signature of Shoyeb Alam has not been attested in the said authorization letter.  Moreover, the original authorization letter has been withheld for the reason best known to Shoyeb Alam.

In absence of proper authorization document duly executed by the complainant, the said Shoyeb Alam has no locus standi either to institute the complaint case or to depose in the case on behalf of the complainant.

In the light of the observation made above it is needless to discuss about the other issues of the case.

In the result the Complaint Case fails and liable to be dismissed in limini.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the Complainant Case be and the same is dismissed ex parte without cost.

Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the complainant free of cost.