ORDER

Hon’ble Shri Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member Learned Advocate for the complainant is present.

2. None is present for the other side.

3. Today is fixed for final hearing.

4. Learned Advocate for the complainant files BNA.

5. Heard the Learned Advocate for the complainant.

6. This is a case under section 17 of the C.P.A., 1986 valued at Rs.44,88,943/-

7. The fact of the case is in short like that;

8. The complainant booked a flat in a project called ‘Terrace Heights’. Situated in the Greentech City at Mouza Bajetaraf, P.S. Rajarhat, Kolkata on 30.01.2014 by paying an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide Cheque No. 068152 dated 31.01.2014 drawn on S.B.I., Salt Lake Branch, Electronics Complex, Kolkata. On the same day the complainant gave another cheque of Rs.1,57,725/- by Cheque No. 068153 dated 31.01.2014. Subsequently, the complainant handed over a cheque of Rs. 4,15,000/- by Cheque No. 812821 dated 11.03.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Patna Branch. Subsequently, on 29.04.2014 the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 6,45,000/- by Cheque No. 812822 dated 29.04.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank, Patna Branch.

9. The complainant further paid an amount of Rs. 61,854/- by Cheque No. 68154 dated 12.03.2014 drawn on S.B.I., Salt Lake Branch, Electronics Complex, Kolkata. The complainant also paid Rs. 2,00,000/- by Cheque No. 000001 dated 30.05.2014 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Patna Branch and lastly, Rs. 1,76,997/- by Cheque No. 68155 dated 30.05.2014 drawn on S.B.I., Salt Lake Branch, Electronics Complex, Kolkata after executing the agreement for sale.

10. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 17,56,573/-.

11. The total consideration money for the flat in question was Rs. 52,29,750/-. The OP charged the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as extra sale price including service tax for one covered car parking space.

12. The agreement for sale is at Annexure-D. It would reveal from the agreement for sale dated 15.05.2014 that the committed date of delivery of possession is within 24 months from the date of agreement for sale.

13. On 30.04.2015 the complainant received an e-mail from one Kakoli Das being a representative of the OP, intimating her that the casting work of the second floor was complete. So, she demanded for further payment. On 12.09.2015 the complainant visited the project site and found that the work was stalled at the stage of piling work. On 26.04.2016 the complainant received an e- mail from one Rajesh Gupta being an employee of the OP, intimating that the piling work of the said project was completed.

14. The complainant was perplexed because there were two different versions from two representatives of the Opposite Party.

15. Subsequently, by a legal notice

dated 04.05.2018 (Annexure – K), the complainant requested the OP to hand over the scheduled flat within 30 days from the date of legal notice. But, the OP did not hand over the same. So, the complainant filed this case in March, 2019.

16. The OP initially contested the case by filing a written version denying the material allegations of the complainant’s petition along with technical pleas. It is admitted that they executed an agreement for sale. It is also admitted position that there is some delay in handing over the flat in question. They stated that for the reasons beyond their control they could not complete the construction work of the scheduled flat.

17. The OP also alleged that the flat was intended to be purchased by the claimant/complainant for commercial purpose.

18. The complainant filed evidence in chief by way of affidavit. Against the same, the OP filed questionnaire and the complainant filed reply.

19. We perused the evidence. It appears that the evidence has not been shaken in cross examination.

20. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose on 31.01.2014, 15.05.2014 and lastly on 04.05.2018, the day, when the complainant sent the legal notice.

21. As the possession was not delivered the possession, so the complainant filed the case. We perused