Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA
SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER
Sankar Naskar - Complainant
Versus
S.G. Group & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No.CC/422 of 2014
Decided on : 03-10-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choumal and Ms. Debolina Chakraborty, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Suvendu Das and Ms. Asha Ghosh, Advocates.
The binding nature of signed documents containing contractual terms and the importance of producing original agreements to ascertain disputed facts.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Housing Construction - Section 17 - Summary: The court discussed the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding deficiency in services in a housing construction dispute. The court emphasized the importance of producing the original agreement for sale to ascertain disputed facts and highlighted the binding nature of signed documents containing contractual terms. The court concluded that the matter should be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court due to apparent disputes of facts.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by an intending purchaser against a partnership construction firm and the landowner for deficiency in services in a housing construction dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original agreement for sale was not produced, leading to apparent disputes of facts, and concluded that the matter should be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the execution of the agreement for sale, possession of the flat, and the binding nature of signed documents containing contractual terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of producing the original agreement for sale to ascertain disputed facts and highlighted the binding nature of signed documents containing contractual terms.
Final Decision: The complaint was rejected as not maintainable, and the matter was directed to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.
ORDER :
Mr. Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, Presiding Member-The instant complaint under Section 17 (inadvertently mentioned under Section 15) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of an intending purchaser against a partnership construction firm (Opposite Party No. 1) represented by its partners (Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3) and the landowner (Opposite Party No. 4) on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Parties in a consumer dispute of housing construction.
2. Succinctly put, Complainant’s case is that on 15.4.2011 he entered into an agreement with the OP No. 1 to purchase a self-contained flat measuring about 725 sq. ft. on the ground floor at the proposed three storeyed new building lying and situated at Holding No. 1107, Srinagar Raod, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700084, Dist- South 24 Parganas within the local limits of Ward No. 1 of Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality at a total consideration of Rs. 21,00,000. The complainant has stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 as booking money/advance on or before the date of execution of agreement and subsequently he paid the entire consideration amount.
3. In spite of payment of the same, the O.Ps. neither deliver the possession of the flat nor execute the Deed of Conveyance and in this regard, all the requests and persuasions including correspondences went in vain. Hence, the complaint with prayer for following reliefs, viz. (a) a direction upon the opposite parties to hand over the possession of the flat; (b) a direction upon the opposite parties to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance; (c) compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for harassment and mental agony; (d) litigation cost of Rs. 25,000, etc.
4. The Opposite Parties by filing a joint written version have refuted the contentions of the complainant by stating that one Mr. Amalendu Mondal, Advocate being Legal Adviser by utilising his professional position, on 15.4.2011 came to the office of them with the complainant with a Draft Agreement for Sale disclosing the close relation of the said Advocate with the complainant and on good faith and obtained the signature but they never received any money from the complainant. The O.Ps have stated that they did not put any signature in the memo of consideration of Agreement for Sale and there was no signature of scribe. The O.Ps have stated that the complainant in collusion with Mr. Amalendu Mondal, Advocate had procured the said Draft Agreement for Sale dated 15.4.2011 by utilising the good faith and confidence of them upon Sri Amalendu Mondal, Advocate.
5. The parties have filed evidence on affidavit and also given reply against the questionnaires set forth by their adversaries. At the time of final hearing, on behalf of O.Ps, brief notes of argument has been filed. Both the parties have also relied upon Photostat copy of Agreement for Sale dated 15.4.2011.
6. The pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record make it abundantly clear that on 15.4.2011 an Agreement for Sale was executed in between the complainant, landowner (Opposite Party No. 4) and the partners of S.G.Group (O.P. No. 1) wherefrom it reveals that the opposite parties agreed to sell and the complainant agreed to purchase one self-contained flat measuring about 725 sq. ft. on the ground floor at the proposed three storied new building lying and situated at Holding No. 1107, Srinagar Raod, P.S..- Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700084, Dist- South 24 Parganas within the local limits of Ward No. 1 of Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality at a total consideration of Rs. 21,00,000.
7. Both the parties have filed Photostat copy of the Agreement for Sale but the original agreement for sale has not been produced by the complainant to remove the shadow regarding the genuineness of terms of agreement arrived at by and between the parties. The Photostat copy of agreement for sale filed by the O.Ps. differ with the copy of agreement for sale enclosed by the complainant with the petition of
