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/85/2020
In the matter of:
Smt. Gita Chanda,
....Complainant
-versus-
1. M/s. Sree Ram Builders
... Opposite Party
QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The
followings are the questions by the Opposite Party Soumen Chakraborty, to the
Consumer Complainants;
Questions
;
Question
no. 1 What is your educational
qualification and occupation ?
Question
no. 2 This is true that you and your
Sister Anjali Karmakar are co-owners of the property at premises No. 40/15/1,
Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, ( presently known as Moore Avenue), Kolkata –
700040, and both of you consented for construction of a building on your plot
of land by the opposite party, herein. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
Question
no. 3 This is true that you Sister
Anjali Karmakar did not consent to institute the present consumer complaint
against this opposite party. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if
any.
Question
no. 4 Did your Sister Anjali Karmakar
is a Complainant in the present Consumer Complaint, against the Opposite Party
?
Question
no. 5 Did your Sister Anjali Karmakar
is a proforma opposite party in the present consumer complaint lodge by you
against this opposite party ?
Question
no. 6 Did you ever aver anywhere in
your petition of consumer complaint as well as in your Evidence on Affidavit,
that your Sister Anjali Karmakar has consented to institute the present
consumer complaint against this opposite party ?
Question
no. 7 This is true that an Agreement between Smt. Anjali Karmakar & Smt Gita
Chanda, and the Respondent M/s. Sree Ram Builders, represented by its
Proprietor Shri Ratan Kumar Banerjee, has been entered for the Construction and
development of schedule property ALL THAT piece and parcel of 4(four) Cottahas
10 (ten) Chhitacks and 4(four) Sq. ft. together with Kuncha structure comprised
in Mouza – Shibpur, JL no. 42, Khatian No. 176, Dag No. 244, Touji No. 151,
Within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Ward no. 97, and known and numbered as
Municipal Premises No. 40/15/1, Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, now Moore Avenue,
Police Station – Regent Park, Kolkata – 700040, District – South 24 Parganas.
Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 8 This
is true that the Owners being Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar,
executed and granted a General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Ratan Kumar
Banerjee, Prop. Of Ms. Sree Ram Builders, in terms of the Agreement dated
24-07-2005, for ensuing the Development Work on the schedule property. Say yes
or no describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 9 This is true that The Agreement dated
24-07-2005, contained the following covenants :
a)
At page number – 4
– 9 OWNERS’ ALLOCATION : shall mean on completion of the new proposed building
the owners herein shall be entitled to get all that three self contained
habitable flats out of which (i) one flat no. GB in the Ground Floor measuring
500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or little more or less, (ii) another flat
no. 1B in the First Floor measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the or little
more or less, and (iii) another flat no. 2B, in the Second Floor measuring 500
Sq. ft. built up area be the same or little more or less to be constructed as
per sanctioned building plan, which is to be renewed from the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation as per present building rules in respect of premises no. 40/15/1,
Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, formerly Moore Avenue, Police Station – Regent
Park, Kolkata – 700 040, the particulars of such entirety of land and premises
is more fully described in the FIRST SCHEDULE hereunder written along with
proportionate share of land attributable to the said constructional areas with
common facilities, civic amenities as to provided in the said building and to
constructed as per specification given in the SECOND SCHEDULE hereunder
written, as part of the total consideration for the said land and premises.
b)
At page number – 5
– 10 – CONSIDERATION : shall mean apart from the aforesaid constructed
habitable areas mentioned hereinabove as Owner’s allocation the developer shall
also pay to the Owners a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, as
part of total consideration of the said land and premises. Out of such Rs.
5,00,000/- the developer already paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as per memo of
consideration appended below and the Owners hereby acknowledged the same and
the balance sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- shall be payable on easy installment but
within the stipulated period as hereinabove mentioned.
Say yes or no,
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 10 This is true that one Misc. Case no. 323 of 2006 { Smt. Anjali Karmakar &
Others } has been instituted by the Owners being Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt.
Anjali Karmakar, before the Learned District Judge, at Alipore, South 24
Parganas, being an application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act. Say
yes or no, describe your answer, in details, if any.
Question no. 11 This is
true that Order dated 10-07-2008, passed by the Learned District Judge, at
Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Misc. Case no. 323 of 2006, has come in the year
2008. Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details, if any.
Question
no. 12 This is true that one Supplementary Agreement
between the Owners and the Developer entered in continuation of the Agreement
dated 24-07-2005, and thereby modified the contents of Owners allocation and
considerations, which are as follows :
a)
At page number – 4
– 3 – OWNER’S ALLOCATION : shall mean on completion of the new proposed
building the Owners herein shall be entitled to get all that two self contained
habitable flats out of which (i) one Flat no. 2B in the Second Floor on western
portion of the Building measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or
little more or less and (iii) another Flat no. 3B in the Third Floor on western
portion of the building measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or
little more or less to be constructed as per sanctioned building plan at
premises no. 40/15/1, Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, formerly Moore Avenue,
Police Station – Regent Park, Kolkata – 700 040, the particulars of such
entirety of land and premises is more fully described in the FIRST SCHEDULE
hereunder written along with proportionate share of land attributable to the
said constructional areas with common facilities, civic amenities as to
provided in the said building and to constructed as per specification given in
the SECOND SCHEDULE hereunder written, as part of the total consideration for
the said land and premises.
b)
At page number – 5
– 4 – CONSIDERATION : shall mean apart from the aforesaid two flats as
mentioned hereinabove as Owners’ allocation the Developer shall also pay to the
Owners a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- ( Rupees Nine Lakhs ) only as part of total
consideration of the said land and premises, out of such Rs. 9,00,000/- (
Rupees Nine Lakhs ) only, the Developer already paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (
Rupees Five Lakhs ) only to the Owners and the balance sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (
Rupees Four Lakhs ) only, shall be payable by the Developer to the Owners on
easy installment on or before handing over possession of Owner’s allocation to
the Owners
Say yes or no,
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question no. 13 This
is true that on 30-09-2011, The Completion Certificate for
Completion of Building Premises, issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details, if any.
Question
no. 14 This is true that on 08-10-2011,
The Physical Possession of the Owners allocation has
been given by the Developer, and Since, then the Owners are enjoying
uninterruptedly. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question no. 15 This is
true that Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar, entered into an
Agreement for Sale dated 23-07-2014, with one Kishore Chanda, Son of Late
Rakhal Chanda, of 2/8, Bidhysagar Colony, also of 13, Bidhyasagar Colony, P.S.
Patuli, Kolkata – 700086, for Sale of piece and parcel of 620 sq. ft. more or
less super built up area of a self-contained flat at the ground floor of the
G+3 storied building standing over 4 Cottahas 10 Chhitacks 23 sq. ft. more or
less at Dag No. 244, Khatian No. 176, JL No. 42, Touzi No. 151, Mouza –
Shibpur, PS. – Regent Park, also known as 40/15/1, Manik Bondyopadhyay Sarani,
under KMC Ward no. 97, Kolkata – 700040, against the consideration money as of
Rs. 7,50,000/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only. Say yes or no,
describe your answer in details, if any.
Question no. 16 This is
true that One Consumer Complaint has been instituted by Kishore Chanda, Son of
Late Rakhal Chanda, of 2/8, Bidhysagar Colony, also of 13, Bidhyasagar Colony,
P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 700086, against Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar,
for enforcement of the said Agreement for Sale dated 23-07-2014, vide Consumer
Complaint Case no. 568 of 2014, before the Learned District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas. Say yes or no, describe your
answer in details, if any.
Question no. 17 This is
true that Judgment
dated 31-07-2005, passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in CC/568/2014, the operative portion
hereby furnished : “Both the O.Ps are jointly and / or severally directed to
execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in
respect of the flat in question. Both the O.Ps are jointly and / or severally
directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees tHree Thousand only ) as litigation cost
to the complainant. All the orders should be complied with within 30 days from
this date, failing which all the O.Ps are jointly and / or severally directed
to pay Rs. 100/- per diem to the complainant after the stipulated period till
full compliance”. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 18 This is true that on 30-11-2016,
the respondent, being constituted
attorney of the petitioner and her co-sharer came accosted with an event that
some police personnel with one Learned Advocate and one Kishore Chanda, visited
the premises and break the pad lock of one vacant flat of the owner’s
allocation thereof and at the Ground floor of the premises being no. 40/15/1,
Manik Bandyopadhyay Sarani, formerly Moore Avenue, Kolkata – 700 040, under the
Ward no. 97 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and acknowledge about one
Execution proceeding being no. EA/14/2016, titled as { Kishore Chanda – Versus
– Anjali Karmakar and another }, and thus the respondent, came into knowledge
of the said Consumer proceeding. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
Question
no. 19 This is true that appeal
under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, has been numbered as A/1172/2016, titled as { Smt. Anjali
Karmakar and another – Versus Kishore Chanda }, and whereas the delay
application as well as the said appeal upon necessary hearing, the Hon’ble
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dismissed the
application for condonation of delay in filing appeal resulting dismissal of
appeal, vide order 15th day of May’ 2017. Say yes or no, describe
your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 20 This is true that on 19-07-2016,
Deed of Conveyance by Sujata Ghosh Ld. Advocate as
the Commissioner and machinery of the Forum on behalf of the said Anjali
Karmakar and Gita Chanda, regfistered in favour of Kishorer Chanda, registered
in Book no. I, Volume No. 1601-2016, pages from 70659 to 70698 Being No.
160102384, for the year 2016. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details,
if any.
Question no. 21 This is
true that the Said Kishore Chanda sold to one Jaganmay Mondal, vide registered
in Book no. I, Volume Number 1601-2017, Pages from 50923 to 50968, Being number
160101712 for the year 2017. Say yes or, describe your answer, in details, if
any.
Question no. 22 This is
true that the
present Consumer Complaint suffering from the followings. Says yes or no,
describe your answerin details, if any :
a)
Suppression of the material facts;
b)
Non joiner of the Party;
c)
Barred by the Limitation;
d)
Wrongful Claim;
e)
Complainant is not a Consumer;
f)
Disputes as referred is not a Consumer Disputes;
g)
No Cause of Action has ever bee accrued;
h)
Vague and Frivolous Application;
Question
no. 23 This is true that the Complainant
is an Income Tax Assessee, Say Yes or No, describe your answer in details if
any.
Question
no. 24 This is true that the contents
and purports of agreement entered are binding on you. Say yes or no, describe
your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 25 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. 26 This is true that you are
residing in the flat at the premises, since delivery of possession. Say yes or
no describe your answer, in details, if any.
Question
no. 27 This is true that the said given
flat has more area in measurement and big one than of the agreed one, in the
agreement with this opposite party. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
Question
no. 28 Do you have any objection, if
this opposite party placed an application for appointment of Survey Passed
Engineer Commissioner for ascertainment of actual measurement of the flat, in
which you reside at the premises ?
Question
no. 29 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. 30 This is true that the delivery
of possession of the said flats in terms of the agreement has already been
occurred, immediately on completion of the building and you are residing in the
said flat. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 31 This is true that the said Flat
has duly been mutated in your name, in the record of the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 32 Do you gone through the contents
& purports of the Written Version submitted by this Opposite Party ?
Question
no. 33 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. 34 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. 35 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. 36 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. 37 This is true that the contents
are same in your petition of consumer complaint and in your evidence on
affidavit. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.
Question
no. 38 This is true that this opposite
party have no disputes with the complainant, as complainant alleged in her concocted consumer complaint.
Say yes or no, describe your answers in details, if any.
Question
no. 39 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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