KUNTAL BAGCHI Vs. PAJ CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint filed by the Complainant against the OPs alleging deficiency in service relating to non -supply of the relevant documents in respect of the property for causing necessary searching and executing the agreement for sale of the flat in question along with car parking space. In the said complaint the Complainant has also prayed for direction upon the OPs to specify the allotment of the flat before executing the agreement for sale and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000 due to unnecessary harassment, mental agony and sufferings due to intentional delay in supplying the documents to him along with interest and litigation cost.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and his wife chosen the site at 78 Purbapally, Kasba, at the stage of under construction being attracted by the hoarding displayed thereon and got interest to buy a flat in the said proposed building. They made contact with the OP -2 at his office and being satisfied with the site booked one flat of the abovementioned project measuring 1300 sq.ft. at a settled/agreed price of Rs. 29,60,000 including the cost of a car parking space. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 on 24.6.2009 towards booking money of the said flat against receipt. It was stated at that time by the OP -2 that he was not in a position to remember whether some one had already booked the third floor flat or not. So, the Complainant agreed to purchase flat either on the 3rd floor or in the 4th floor of the proposed building. On the date of issuing of the receipt the OP -2 has also issued a letter dated 24.6.2009 confirming the measurement of the flat as 1300 sq.ft. and the price of the flat including the car parking space as Rs. 29,60,000. He assured that necessary documents and papers relating to the said construction would be supplied to them for necessary searching and satisfaction within a few days because those were not ready with him at that time. But curiously even after a month OP -2 remained silent in supplying those documents. The Complainant requested him several times over phone to provide but the OP -2 though assured, but started avoiding him on one pretext or other in supplying those documents. On 19.9.2009 the Complainant and his wife went to the office of the OPs, while the OP -2 further assured them that the xerox copies of the documents would be supplied within a few days and based on those documents they could search the property and on being satisfied they were required to pay the cost of Rs. 2,60,000 at the time of execution of the agreement for sale and thereafter they could process for the loan. On 7.10.2009 the OP -2 contacted to the Complainant over telephone and requested him to send his representative for collecting those documents and accordingly the Complainant sent his representative on the next date but again the OP -2 failed to provide the same. Then the Complainant sent a letter dated 8.10.2009 under registered post with A/D to the OP -2 with a request to supply those documents for possessing loan to buy the flat. Again the Complainant wrote a letter dated 26.10.2009 to the OP with a request for supplying the copies of the documents in respect of the said property so as to enable him to arrange for further payment of the flat. But surprisingly the OPs started delay in supplying the documents with a view to claim the enhanced amount of the price of the said flat with ill motive. The Complainant was/is still ready and willing to purchase the said flat and for the said purchase he wrote several letters as well as made conversations over telephone, but nothing was resulted excepting tremendous hardship, harassment and suffering. The OPs started creating various problems by adopting unfair tactics as they started to talk over phone with the Complainant using very illegal languages and created unlawful pressure. The OP -2 issued an Advocate's letter dated 28.10.2009 to the Complainant wherein so many un -true/false statements were made against the Complainant. In the said letter it has been mentioned by the OP -2 that they are intending to sell the flat to a new buyer at enhanced price. The Complainant has stated that the OP -2 has got no right to cancel the allotment of the flat against which booking money was paid and duly received by the OPs. Therefore, question of refund of the amount does not arise at all and due to such act of mischief and conduct of the OP -2 the Complainant had suffered tremendous harassment and mental agony and hence, he filed the complaint before this Commission praying for reliefs as mentioned in his favour. 3. The OPs have contested the petition of complaint by filing written version wherein it has been mentioned that on 24.6.2009 the OPs handed over all necessary documents to the Complainant so that he may make arrangement for necessary searches and if he is satisfied with the allotment, then an agreement for sale of the said flat will be done within seven days, otherwise the allotment willbe terminated and the processing fee of 10% from the allotment money will be deducted and balance will be returned to the Complainant. If the OP cannot satisfy the Complainant in respect of the title of the said property, it will be liable to refund the entire amount of Rs. 40,000 to the Complainant within a month from the date of cancellation. But in spite of necessary documents and papers relating to the property which was handed over to the Complainant, the Complainant did not approach the OPs with the search report. So that it is not true that on 24.6.2009 no documents or papers were supplied to the Complainant for necessary searching and in this respect the Annexure -D itself reflects that the documents were given to the Complainant on that very day.

(3.) THE OPs have denied that the Complainant made several correspondences with them personally or over telephonic discussion in respect of providing documents. It has been stated in the written version that the statement made by the Complainant is not correct because on the first day when booking money was paid by the Complainant the relevant papers and documents relating to the under construction flat and land were supplied by the OPs to the Complainant for pursuing loan before the bank. As the Complainant failed to fulfil the terms and conditions, the OPs terminated the booking of the flat with the Complainant. It has been submitted by the OPs in their written version that in spite of getting of entire papers the Complainant sat tightly over the said documents for a period of more than 4 months, where the OPs had no role. On the contrary the OPs always extended their co -operation to the Complainant for compliance of the formalities and execution of the agreement for sale, but the Complainant did not care to this. On several occasion the OP -2 send his authorized representative to the residence of the Complainant for making an agreement for sale after making payment of Rs. 7,50,000 by 15.7.2009 and to enter into an agreement in order to determine the specific flat for purchase. Admittedly, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000 on 24.6.2009 towards booking money in respect of the purchase of the said flat, but the Complainant did not proceed further from 24.6.2009 till filing of this case and to cover up his own laches, he is now talking all sorts of untenable pleas and the Complainant refused to meet either the OPs or his authorized representative. The OPs waited for more than three months from 24.6.2009 for getting report from the Complainant and despite suffering huge pecuniary loss and damages they expected that the Complainant would pay the said amount which is 25% of the total consideration money and shall make and agreement for sale. The OPs have further submitted that such conduct and attitude of the Complainant proves that he is not interested to purchase the flat from the OPs. Under the above circumstances, the OPs in the said letter dated 28.10.2009 intimated the Complainant that he is ready to remit the booking amount to the tune of Rs.40,000 to him as the said allotment stood already cancelled. By issuing such letter the OPs showed their willingness to refund the said allotment money. It is stated by the OPs that due to inaction or non action on the part of the Complainant the OPs suffered financial loss. According to the OPs as there was no deficiency in service in cancelling the allotment in respect of the flat in question the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.