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/76/2022
In the matter of:
Purnajyoti Roy & another,
....Complainant
-versus-
M/s. Skylark Construction & Others,
... Opposite Parties
QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 5, SMT. MINA
BASU, TO THE COMPLAINANT NO. 2, PRIYANKA ROY.
The
followings are the questions by the Opposite Party No. Smt. Mina Basu, to the
Consumer Complainant no. 1, Priyanka Roy;
Questions
;
Question
no. 1 What is your educational
qualification and occupation ? do you
able to read, and right English ?
Question
no. 2 This is true that you did not
enter into any agreement either with this opposite party or with any other
opposite parties of the present consumer proceeding. Say yes or no, describe
your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 3 This is true that you and the
other complainant did never enter into any contract with this opposite party.
Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 4 Did your predecessor Sunita Roy
had entered into any agreement with this opposite Party ? if so, place such
document with a copy to this opposite party.
Question
no. 5 Do your ever able to show that
the signature of this opposite party appeared on any document or paper placed
by you in the present consumer proceeding ?
Question
no. 6 Do you ever able to show that
this opposite party had ever received any money from your predecessor Sunita
Roy or from you on any occasion ? if so, place such document with a copy to
this opposite party.
Question
no. 7 Did you ever communicate
anything by way of written communication through letter to this opposite party,
on any occasion, prior to institution of the present consumer proceeding? if
so, provide such communication, with a copy to this opposite party.
Question
no. 8 This is true that the content
& purports of the petition of consumer complaint and your Evidence on
affidavit are not the same. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if
any.
Question
no. 9 This is true that you do not
have any other document than the documents attached either with your petition
of consumer complaint or evidence on affidavit. Say yes or no, describe your
answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 10 This is true that you are not
able to produce any other document than the document you have already produced in
the present consumer proceeding. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
Question
no. 11 This is true that while, your
predecessor Sunita Roy, entered into an agreement with the other opposite
parties, did not enquire anything, therefore no such document in the nature of
report by any Govt. Department or anybody is with you. Say yes or no, describe
your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 12 What prompted either you or your
predecessor Sunita Roy not to contact or communicate anything with this
opposite party, since your predecessor involvement with the other opposite
parties ?
Question
no. 13 Why did not you communicate
anything to this opposite party?
Question
no. 14 This is true that your
predecessor Sunita Roy, and you, in connivance with the other opposite parties
tried to acquire and occupy illegally the property of this opposite party. Say
yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 15 This is true that the Other
opposite parties and your predecessor Sunita Roy and you, do not have any
right, title, and interest in the property of this opposite party. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 16 This is true that you cannot
claim the property of this opposite party by way of giving any money to the
other opposite parties, by means of any fraudulent and manufactured agreement
between your predecessor Sunita Roy and the other opposite parties. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 17 This is true that That one Title Suit has been
instituted by Sri Utpal Roy, Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Roy, Sri Tapan Nag, Son
of Late Ramani Kanta Nag, and Smt. Sutapa Roy, Wife of Utpal Roy, being
Partners of M/s. Skylark Construction, having its office at premises no. 28A,
Raja S.C. Mullick Road, Police Station – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032, against
Smt. Mina Basu, widow of Late Amiya Kumar Basu, residing at premises no. 6,
Shiba Temple Lane, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 078, viz. Title Suit
no. 14 of 2008. The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is that the defendant
is the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff with an intention to develop the
said suit premises by way of construction of multi storied building consisting
of several flats, car parking space etc. Entered into an agreement on
17-08-2001, with M/s. Skylark Construction a partnership firm represented by
it’s partners. The Plaintiff decided to take the project for construction of
partly G + 3 and partly three storied building on the suit plot in accordance
with the sanction plan of K.M.C. It was settled between the parties that one
flat on first floor front side south west and another one on the second floor
front side south west and one car parking space of the proposed building will
be given to the owners. Also Rs. 3,75,000/- will be given in addition.
Plaintiff already paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant by way of cheque dated
17-08-2001, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Moore Avenue Branch. It was settled that
balance amount will be payable at the time of delivery of possession of flats.
It was further agreed that the defendant will execute a general power of
attorney in favour of the plaintiff in order to facilitate the construction
work. In terms of the agreement dated 17-08-2001, plaintiff submitted draft
plan of proposed building before K.M.C. There was a clause in that agreement
that the proposed construction of the building shall be completed within 24
months but if there is any delay due to non compliance of the terms of
agreement by defendant the construction period shall be extended. Defendant
delivered all relevant title deeds save and except mutation certificate from
B.L. & L.R.O. defendant assured that she will deliver the mutation
certificate from B.L. & L.R.O. but did not do the same for which there was
delay in getting sanction from K.M.C. However the plaintiff started
construction and completed sixty per cent of the work. Defendant also did not
execute any Power of Attorney, as agreed upon. Thereafter on 05-01-2008,
defendant issued a notice through her advocate Sri Malay Sengupta on the
plaintiff stating that the agreement dated 17-08-2001, stand cancelled. In that
letter defendant also demanded to take back the original documents. According
to the plaintiff defendant has got no right to cancel the agreement
unilaterally without any reason. Due to such acts of defendants, plaintiff
suffered enormous loss, therefore the suit being Title Suit no. 14 of 2008, has
been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant before the Learned 5th
Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Alipoire, South 24 Parganas. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 18 This is true that in the said Title Suit no. 14
of 2008, before the Learned 5th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior
Division ) at Alipoire, South 24 Parganas, Smt. Mina Basu, widow of Late Amiya
Kumar Basu, residing at premises no. 6, Shiba Temple Lane, Police Station –
Kasba, Kolkata – 700 078, being the defendant therein in the said Suit before
the Learned Court, contested the said Suit by filling her written statement.
Defendant stated that the suit is not maintainable. Defendant denied all the
allegation made against her by the plaintiff. The defendant case is that it was
agreed between the parties that the construction will be completed within a
period of 24 months after getting the sanction plan but plaintiff neglected to
complete the same. Defendant denied that due to non supply of mutation
certificate plaintiff failed to obtain sanction plan from K.M.C. The plan was
sanctioned on 24-03-2004, and it was valid upto 23-03-2007. But even after
lapses of 24 months plaintiff failed to complete construction and even they did
not handover the owner’s allocation to the defendant. Due to non performance of
plaintiff the agreement dated 17-08-2001, already stood cancelled, and
thereafter defendant gave a letter to plaintiff asking them to return the
original documents, but till date the plaintiff did not do so. It is also
stated that the plaintiff did not insist defendant to execute any general power
of attorney, on all these grounds defendant prays for dismissal of the suit. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 19 This is true that to prove said Suit, before the
Learned Court, the Plaintiff no. 1, Shri Utpal Roy, deposed as P.W. 1, the
documents filed by the plaintiff are marked as Exbt. 1, Agreement for
development dated 17-08-2001, marked as Exbt. 2, Sanctioned plan no. 797/03,
marked as Exbt. 3. Letter dated 18-02-2008, addressed to the plaintiffs firm
along with envelop, marked as Exbt. 4. (Series ) copy of letter dated
28-02-2008, along with postal receipt and A.D. card marked as Exbt. 5. Letter addressed
to Utpal Roy, marked as Exbt. 6, A/D card marked as Exbt. 7, Letter dated
12-06-2009.
Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 20 This is true that in the said Suit, before the
Learned Court, it is admitted by both the parties that defendant who is the
owqner of the suit premises entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, which
is a partnership firm for development of the suit property by raising
multistoried building. It was also agreed that the construction will be
completed within 24 months after receiving the sanctioned plan from K.M.C. The
plaintiff alleged that though defendant handed over the title deed but did not
handover the mutation certificate from B.L. & L.R.O. for which obtaining
sanctioned plan from K.M.C. got delayed. It is further alleged that even
defendant did not execute any power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff for
undertaking the construction work. However, the plaintiff constructed sixty
percent of the proposed building, and thereafter requested defendant again to
execute the power of attorney. But without doing so defendant by a letter dated
05-01-2008, cancelled the agreement. On the other hand, defendant denied all
such allegations and stated that though the plaintiff obtained sanctioned plan
on 24-03-2004, but failed to raise construction within the stipulated period. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 21 This is true that PW 1, in his affidavit in chief
corroborated his plaint case. In cross examination he admitted that though
exbt.1, is dated 17-08-2001, but on the notorised page the date of execution is
mentioned as 28-08-2001. He stated that he does not have any documents to show
that they have sent the draft copy of power of attorney to the defendant. He
also stated that it is not mentioned in exbt. 1, that without any mutation
certificate they will not be able to obtain any sanction plan. From his
evidence it also appears that he has got no documents to show that he is
authorized by other partners to depose in the case nor his partnership business
/ partnership firm is registered under societies act. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 22 This is true that PW 1, also stated that he did
not assign any reason to defendant specifying any reason for delay in
completion of the said project. He also did not give any letter to the
defendant asking her to execute any power of attorney in his favour.
Corporation did not give him any letter informing him that without mutation of
B.L. & L.R.O. no plan could be sanctioned. He did not file any report of
chartered engineer and it is his own assumption that he has completed ninety
five percent of the construction work. He admitted that exbt. 1, does not bear
signature of owner. He also admitted that the defendant did not take any
consideration money. He also admitted that there is no initial of defendant in
page – 2 of exbt 1, where there is a handwritten portion. Though his learned
lawyer Sri Prasanta Mukherjee drafted the agreement but nowhere it has been
written that he drafted the same. He also admitted that sanction plan was valid
upto 23-03-2009, and he did not get any completion certificate from K.M.C. upto
23-03-2009. He also admitted that stipulated time expired long ago. He also
stated that though her original documents of defendant are lying with him but
he will not return those documents. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
Question
no. 23 This is true that thereafter the
said Title Suit no. 14 of 2008, { Sri Utpal Roy and Others – Versus – Smt. Mina
Basu } has get it finality in terms of the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20th
day of August’ 2010, by the Learned 5th Court of Civil Judge (
Senior Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the
Suit be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost”. Say yes or no,
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 24 This is true that thereafter on
defeating the said Suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal from the Original
Decree being the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20th day of
August’ 2010, by the Learned 5th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior
Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the Suit be
and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost”, before the Hon’ble High
Court at Calcutta, viz. FA / 46 / 2011, which consequentially dismissed by the
Order dated February’ 14, 2011. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details,
if any.
Question
no. 25 This is true that in view of the
facts of the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20th day of August’
2010, by the Learned 5th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ),
at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the Suit be and the same
is dismissed on contest but without cost”, there is no agreement and or
contract between Smt. Mina Basu, and M/s. Skylark Construction, Sri Utpal Roy,
Sri Tapan Nag, and Smt. Sutapa Roy, in any manner, whatsoever. Say yes or,
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 26 This is true that there is no
privity of contract between the parties. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
Question
no. 27 Do you have any priviti of
contract with this opposite party ? if so how & when, describe your answer
in details, with copy of appropriate document in such regard, if any.
Question
no. 28 Are you a Consumer as per
provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, in the given
facts by you to this opposite party ? Describe your answer.
Question
no. 29 This is true that the Other
Opposite Parties being the Opposite Party no. 1, 2, 3, & 4, had have no
contract with this opposite party to perform or to be perform. Say yes or no,
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 30 Do you able to produce any
document to show that this opposite party has ever authorized or asked to
entered into any nature of agreement or contract with you or your predecessor ?
if so, place such document, with a copy to this opposite party.
Question
no. 31 This is true that this opposite
party have no relation with the opposite party no. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 32 This is true that you are not
entitled to acquire any property of this opposite party. Say yes or no describe
your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 33 This is true that in placing
prayer for relief before the Hon’ble Commission, by way of your consumer
complaint, is much vague, and contradictory in nature, therefor no relief can
be granted in favour of you. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if
any.
Question
no. 34 This is true that you did not
answer on the facts given in the written version. Say yes or no, describe your
answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 35 This is true that you do not
have any locus standi to lodge this present consumer complaint against this
opposite party. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 36 Do you gone through the contents
& purports of the Written Version submitted by this Opposite Party ?
Question
no. 37 This is true that the disputes
referred by you in your petition of consumer complaint is not a Consumer
Disputes as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, Say yes or no
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 38 This is true that you are not a
Consumer as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, say yes or no
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 39 This is true that you have
placed the concocted story in your petition of consumer complaint to in-clinch
issues in your favour, Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details if any.
Question
no. 40 This is true that your consumer
complaint has prepared with oblique motive. Say yes or no describe your answer
in details, if any.
Question
no. 41 This is true that this opposite
party have no disputes with the complainant, as complainant alleged in his/her
concocted consumer complaint. Say yes or no, describe your answers in details,
if any.
Question
no. 42 This is true that there is no
cause of action has ever been accrued to resort in the present consumer
complaint proceeding before the Hon’ble District Commission, Say yes or no
describe your answer in details if any.
Question
no. 43 This is true that this opposite
party did not cause any deficiency in services, as meant for in the Consumer
Protection Act’ 2019. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 44 This is true that the
Complainant is not Consumer, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.
Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 45 This is true that you are not
entitled to get any relief as prayed. Say yes or no describe your answer in
details, if any.
___________________________________XXX__________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment