BEFORE THE
HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III
Tramline
Building ( 1st Floor )
18, Judges
Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027
Consumer Case
no. CC/298/2018
In the matter of:
Himandshu Sekhar Das, & Anr,
....Complainants
-versus-
Soumen Chakraborty,
...
Opposite Party
Brief notes of Argument by the Opposite Party
Facts ;
- One
Himangshu Sekhar Das, is a Central Government Employee, who approached
this opposite party for investment of his money and therefore in such
terms, an agreement for sale has been entered between the said Himangshu
Sekhar Das and this Opposite Party, on 14th day of October’
2014.
- The said
Agreement for sale dated 14-10-2014, has been entered between the said Himangshu
Sekhar Das, and Tapas Das, as a Purchasers, and Shri Mantulal
Chaskraborty, as a Land Owner, and this opposite party, in respect of a
Flat at 2nd Floor, at premises being no. 12/12, Ishan Guha
Road, Police Station – Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700008, against the
consideration money as of Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs ) only.
- The
Complainants did not perform the agreement for sale dated 14th
day of October’ 2014. The Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand ) only, on 14-10-2014, and Rs.
2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs ) only, and Rs. 7,00,000/- ( Rupees Seven
Lakhs ) only, on 20-11-2015, totaling as of Rs. 12,60,000/- ( Rupees Twelve
Lakhs and Sixty Thousand ) only. The complainants did not make any other
or further payments towards consideration money of the said flat.
- In
consequent facts the complainants on expiry of the substantial period of
time approached to this opposite party for the refund of money, and thus
the opposite party arranged to pay back to the complainants. Thus in the
entirety of the facts the disputes if any is a disputes related to the
refund of money by the opposite party to the complainants.
- The
Complainants purchased a new flat in the month of December’ 2016, and
asked to cancelled the agreement seeking thereby the back of their money.
The said agreement for sale dated 14th October’ 2014, come to
an end on 13th day of January’ 2016. Thus this opposite party thereafter
sold out the said subjected flat to other intending purchaser.
Submissions
;
The
Complainants are not entitled to get any relief in terms of their prayer,
before the Hon’ble District Commission, as they asked for the refund of money
paid by them to this opposite party. The complainants purchased another flat,
in their own vicinity. The complainants were not interested at all in
performing the agreement for sale dated 14-10-2014. Thus on expiry of the said
agreement for sale and failure in making the balance consideration money by
them the relationship between the complainants and this opposite party does not
come in the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.
The agreement
for sale dated 14th day of October’ 2014 expired on 13th
day of January’ 2016, and after expiry of substantial period in the year 2018,
the complainants approached the Learned Commission, for refund of their money.
On the day of
placing the consumer application, there was no agreement between the parties.
There was no privity of contract between the parties. There was only seeking to
get money back by the complainants on cancellation of the said agreement for
sale dated 14th day of October’ 2014, on 13th day of
January’ 2016. Thus the consumer application barred to be placed by the
complainants.
On the day of
placing the consumer application, there was no consumer disputes, between the
parties, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.
In the
entirety of the facts of the complainants, the complainants have no consumer
disputes with this opposite party, thus the Hon’ble District Commission lost
its jurisdiction to entertain such consumer complaint lodged by the
complainants.
-----------------------------------------XXX------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment