SUPRITI MUKHERJEE Vs. BISWAJIT DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2013 passed by learned District Forum, South 24 Pargnas in CC Case No. 234/2012 dismissing the same on contest without cost. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Complainant -Appellants and other co -owners had given the power of attorney to the Respondent -Developer to get approval of the plan from the KMC on their behalf, but the Respondent -developer never disclosed whether and when the building plan was sanctioned and the construction work was completed, learned District Forum considered that the Owner No. 4 (Appellant herein) instead of owner's allocation shall take an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 only by cash and the said amount would have to be paid by the Developer - Respondent to the Appellant at the time of handing over possession of the 1st floor flat to the owner No. 3 failing which, the developer shall provide one flat measuring about 300 sq.ft. super built -up area to the Appellant from the developer's allocation but in the instant case the developer did not pay the scheduled amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to the Appellant within stipulated time nor did handover possession of a flat measuring about 300 sq. ft. from developer's allocation.

(3.) IN course of hearing of the appeal learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the terms of the contract are binding upon the parties and, therefore, the Respondent is bound to deliver possession of a flat of about 300 sq. ft. super built -up area since he failed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within the stipulated time. Learned Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Appellant accepted the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 without raising any objection and thus, she has no case at all.