|
Consumer
Complaint no. 60 of 2023
In the matter
of :
Sri Sudam
Saha, Son of Late Tirthabasi Saha, Resident of 438, Laskarpur, Peyarabagan,
Post Office – Laskarpur, Police Station – Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700153,
District South 24 Parganas,
________Complainant
-
Versus
–
1)
M/s.
S.K.S. Developer, Proprietor Shri Sujit Saha, having its Office at Premises
being no. E-185, Ramgarh, Post Office – Naktala, Police Station – Netaji Nagar,
Kolkata – 700047.
2)
Shri
Sujit Saha, Son of Late Amar Chandra Saha, residing at Premises being no. 521,
Peyara Bagan, Post Office – Laskarpur, Police Station – Narendrapur, Kolkata –
700153.
_________Respondents
QUESTIONNAIRE
ONBEHALF
OF RESPONDENTS
M/s. S.K.S.
Developer and Shri Sujit Saha,
Questions;
1.
What
is your Educational Qualification ?
2.
What
Business, are you Carrying ?
3.
Are
you able to read and write English ?
4.
This
is true that you are not a Consumer as per provision of Section 2 (7) of the
Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, and therefore the present Consumer application deserve
to be dismissed with cost thereof in terms of the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act’ 2019. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
5.
This
is true that the present Complaint did not disclose any cause of action to be
accrued ever to place the present consumer application, more particularly
against this opposite party, Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if
any.
6.
This
is true that your story in the complaint does not constitute the consumer
disputes in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, and
therefore deserve to be dismissed with cost thereof in terms of the provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details if any.
7.
This
is true that the present Consumer application has not been valued appropriately
for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission, and
therefore deserve to be dismissed with cost thereof in terms of the provisions
of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, Say yes or no. describe your answer in
details, if any.
8.
This
is true that the present Consumer complaint is false, vague, and frivolous one,
and thus entitle the rejection with cost, in terms of the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.Say yes or no, describe your answer in details,
if any.
9.
This
is true that while Tirtha
Basi Saha, seized and possessed of the property being homestead land
measuring about more or less 2 (two) Cottahas out of land measuring 4 (four)
Cottahas, comprised in C.S. /R.S. Plot No. 589 (P), 586 (P), L.O.P. No. 438,
J.L. No. 57, Mouza – Laskarpur, Police Station Sonarpur, within the limits of
the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, under its Ward No. 31, Kolkata – 700153, to
and unto in favour of his second son namely Sri Sridam Saha, by a Deed of Gift
on 03/04/2003, which was registered in the office of Additional District Sub
Registrar Sonarpur and recorded in Book No. I, Volume No. 62, Pages 298 to 303,
Being No. 3515 for the year 2003. Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
10.
This
is true that the said Tirtha Basi Saha while he died intestate on 22/11/2023,
leaving behind his wife namely Smt. Anima Saha, three Sons namely (1) Subal
Chandra Saha, (2) Sridam Saha, & (3) Sri Sudam Saha, as his legal heirs and
successors and thereafter the said Anima Saha died intestate on 07/10/2010,
leaving behind her three sons namely (1) Subal Chandra Saha, (2) Sridam Saha,
& (3) Sri Sudam Saha, Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if
any.
11.
This
is true that the said (1) Subal Chandra Saha, (2) Sridam Saha, & (3) Sri
Sudam Saha, have decided to amalgamation for development of the their property
and the deed of exchange/ amalgamation deed was registered in the office of
ADSR Garia and recorded in Book No. 1, Volume No. 1629 of 2017, Pages from 9681
to 9703, Being No. 162900399 for the year 2017, and after such amalgamation
they become joint owners in respect of the property being homestead land
measuring about more or less 4 (four) Cottahas, comprised in C.S. /R.S. Plot
No. 589 (P), 586 (P), L.O.P. No. 438, J.L. No. 57, Mouza – Laskarpur, Police
Station Sonarpur, within the limits of the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, under
its Ward No. 31, Kolkata – 700153, district South 24 Parganas. Say yes or no,
describe your answer in details, if any.
12.
This
is true that the Owners (1) Subal Chandra Saha, (2) Sridam Saha, & (3) Sri
Sudam Saha, to fulfill their desire of their Land Development approached this
Opposite Parties and entered into a Development Agreement dated 21st
day of June’ 2017, which registered in Book No. I, Volume number 1629-2017,
Pages from 55274 to 55318, being Number 162902322 for the Year 2017, in the
office of the Additonal District Sub –Registrar, Garia, West Bengal. Say yes or
no, describe your answer in details, if any.
13.
This
is true that the said Development Agreement dated 21st day of June,
2017, contained the following terms at Page number 9, Paragraph number h –
Owner’s allocation ALL THAT the owners will be jointly entitled to get from the
Developer i.e.
(1) Sri
Subal Chandra Saha :
(i)
1 (one) flat 630 sq. ft. per flat,
built up area, on 3rd floor, front side, South-East Side, flat no.
3A,
(ii)
110 sq. ft. Car Parking space at Ground
Floor,
(iii)
Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs fifty
thousand) only, Non-adjustable which will paid in following manner;
(a) On
the date of Agreement paid Rs. 1,00,000/-
(b) Balance
account paid of vacant possession Rs. 1,50,000/-
(2) Sri Sridam Saha :
(i)
2 (two) flats 630 sq. ft. built up
area, on 2nd floor, fron side, Flat no. 2A, South-East and Flat no.
2B, North-East Side,
(ii)
220 sq. ft. Car Parking space on Ground
Floor and 200 Sq. ft. Store Room back side of the building,
(iii)
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) only
Non-Adjustable which will paid in the following manner;
(a) On
the date of agreement paid Rs. 2,00,000/-
(b) Balance
amount to be paid of vacant possession Rs. 3,00,000/-
(iv)
Shifting @ Rs. 4,000/- per month after
taken of vacant possession.
(3) Mr.
Sudam Saha :
(i)
1 (one) flat 630 sq. ft. built up area
on 3rd floor, front side, north-east side, flat no. 3B,
(ii)
110 sq. ft. Car Parking Space at Ground
Floor,
(iii)
Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs fifty
thousand) only Non-Adjustable which will paid in the following manner;
(a) Date
of Agreement Paid Rs. 1,00,000/-
(b) Balance
amount paid of vacant possession Rs. 1,50,000/-
(iv)
Shifting @ Rs. 4,000/- per month after
taken of vacant possession.
Upon the said premises, together with
undivided proportionate share and interest of land and right of use and
enjoyment of the common areas and/ or facilities.
Say yes or no, describe your answer in
details, if any.
14.
This is true that the Complainant
delivered the vacant possession only on 04/01/2018, jointly with his other two
brothers, thereafter this opposite party take endavour and obtained the
Building Sanctioned Plan on 15/02/2019, from the concerned Civic Body Rajpur
Sonarpur Municipality. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
15.
This is true that the Complainant
obliged to give his contribution towards installation of Electric Connectivity
through “Transformer” at the said premises. The said Contribution comes as Rs.
27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand) only, more or less, and the GST payable
on the value of the Flat and Car Parking being the Owners allocation allotted
to the Complainant. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
16.
This is true that the present consumer
application is an endavour to take benefit of his own wrong, as the distorted
fact has been placed by the complainant in accusing the opposite party. Say yes
or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
17.
This is true that the Complainant Sri
Sudam Saha, given a Letter dated 23/03/2022, to this Opposite Party, through
his Learned Advocate Amar Mondal, claiming about the money from this opposite
party. This opposite party sufficiently replied the said letter dated
23/03/2022, through his Learned advocate’s letter dated 18th day of
April’ 2022. This opposite party obliged to performed in terms of the
Development Agreement. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
18.
This is true that the said Development
Agreement dated 21st day of June, 2017, contained in Page number 25,
paragraph number 40 – The Developer hereby declare that after sanction plan
from the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, the Owners herein have right to
partition the said property/ flats between themselves and the developer herein
also agreed to help them for the said purpose, but the expenses of the said
partition deed will be borne by the owners. It is morefully mention herein the
owners after execution and partition of the said property should not submit for
mutation of the same in the office of Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality before
completion of the said building by the Developer/ Promoter. If the Owner will
do so then owners will liable to compensate the same, which clearly speaks that
the Owners will partitioned their allocation among them, and subsequently take
their allocation from this opposite party. This Opposite Party is not able to
give the owners allocation individually either any one of the owner among three
owners. Thus due to such reason alone, this opposite party is not able to
deliver the owners allocation to Sri Sudam Saha, even after completion of the
building premises in all respect. The owners are not jointly come to this
opposite party to take their allocation from this Opposite Party. The Owners
are not taking any arrangement for their partition of the allocation in terms
of the Development Agreement dated 21st day of June, 2017. Say yes
or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
19.
This is true that the Opposite Party is
all along ready and willing to deliver the owners allocation subject to their
joint approach until partitioned among them. Say yes or no, describe your
answer in details, if any.
20.
This is true that the present Consumer
disputes as alleged by the complainant herein, is not maintainable in the facts
and in the law against the opposite party, in the terms of the Consumer
Protection Act’ 1872. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.
21.
Why you did not add the your Co-sharers
as a party in your Consumer Complaint ?
22.
Whether your property has ever been
demarcated after amalgamation with the other Co-sharers ?
23.
Did you produce any authenticated
document of the valuation of the property claimed by you ?
24.
Do you agree that the present consumer
complaint failed due to non-joinder of necessary party ?
25.
Are you able to place any deposition as
witnesses of the Co-sharers, in the present Consumer Complaint ?
26.
Can you deny that the other Co-sharers
are satisfied with the services of this opposite parties and are staying in
their respective owners allocation ?
27.
Would you place any other deposition ?
28.
Would you place any other document ?
=========================XXX============================
No comments:
Post a Comment