District : Kolkata Central.
Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit – II ( Central ).
C. C. no. 76 of
2016.
In the
matter of :
Lili Halder,
___Complainant.
-
Versus
–
Alchemist Township
India Limited, ___Opposite Parties.
EVIDENCE
ON AFFIDAVIT
OF
ALCHEMIST
TOWNSHIP INDIA LIMITED
AFFIDAVIT
I SRI ________________________
son of ________________________, by faith Hindu, Indian, by occupation Service,
aged about _______ years, working for gain at M/s. Alchemist Township India
Limited, Baruipur Branch, having it’s office at Subhash Complex, Padmapukur, 2nd
Floor, Kolkata – 700 144, District South 24 Parganas, do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as follows :
1. That I being the representative
of the Opposite Parties in the instant case being filed by the Complainant, and
I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
This is true to
my knowledge.
2. That I beg to say that the
Complaint is not maintainable in its present form.
This
is true to my knowledge.
3. That I beg to say that the
Petition is speculative, harassing, motivated and barred by the Principles of
Law and hence it is liable to be rejected at once.
4. That I beg to say that the
petition is suffering from misjoinder and non joinder of necessary party in the
proceeding, and therefore liable to be dismissed at once with exemplary costs.
5. That I beg to say that the
petition is suffering from suppression of material facts and necessary party,
and therefore liable to be dismissed at once with exemplary costs.
6. That I beg to say that the
petition is suffering from any legal demand and thereby cause of action, the
present petition is motivated and without any jurisdiction.
7. That I beg to say that the
contents of the Complaints are vague and based on after thought concocted
story, made out by the Complainant to in-clinch issues in her favour, and thus
no part of the contents of the Complaint has ever been admitted by the Opposite
Parties, except those are the matter of records.
8. That I beg to say that the
present Complaint has been instituted by the Complainant against the Opposite
Parties to cause several hassle and harassments to the Opposite Parties.
9. That I beg to say that the
Complainant’s disputes is not a Consumer dispute and the Complainant is not a
consumer, as defined and enumerated in the relevant provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act’ 1986.
10.
That
I beg to say that the allotment letter as per application dated 06-07-2013,
were issued to the complainant herein, in the project at Park Avenue, Talwandi,
Tehasil Zira, District Firozpur, Punjab, with a liberty that she can withdraw,
and whereas the complainant, withdraw her allotment, and seeks the refund of
money thereby.
11.
That
I beg to say that in the said allotment letter it was specifically contended
that the matter of compensation should be decided by the opposite parties, and
the same should be at discretion of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant
herein admits such propositions and versions of the opposite parties.
12.
That
I beg to say that the Complainant surrender her allotment to the opposite
parties and seeks refund on money paid by her to the opposite parties.
13.
That
I beg to say that the opposite parties without deducting any taxes and
statutory duties, levy, etc, refund the money along with the compensation
amount though several cheques to her.
14.
That
I beg to say that there is no agreement for sale has ever been entered between
the parties, towards the sale of Land ever developed by the opposite parties.
15.
That
I beg to say that the allotment letter issued by the opposite parties on
request of the complainant does not raise any contract between the parties,
rather the said allotment letter is an receipt and or acknowledgement of money
given by the complainant to the opposite parties.
16.
That
I beg to say that there is no privy of contract between the opposite parties,
and therefore the complainant is not a purchaser and even intending purchaser
from the opposite parties.
17.
That
I beg to say that this is the Complainant who refuse to proceed further and
seek refund of her money paid by her, therefore there is no deficiency in
services.
18.
That
I beg to say that the dishonor of cheques by the banker of the opposite parties
does not give raise of any cause of action for the consumer disputes.
19.
That
I beg to say that the disputes related to the dishonor of cheques should be
decided by the appropriate forum of Law, and the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, have no jurisdiction to try with such disputes.
20.
That
I beg to say that the Complainant is not a consumer in terms of the Provisions
of Section of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, and rules made thereunder.
21.
That
I beg to say that the complainant’s disputes is not a consumer disputes in
terms of the Provisions of Section of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, and
rules made thereunder.
22.
That
I beg to say that the allotment letter for the interest to acquire plot in a
project, does not raise any relationship of consumer and service provider. The
judicial precedent severally has been delivered by the Hon’ble State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, and the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in this context, and in absence of any
contract, the complainant cannot come up before the Hon’ble Forum, claiming
herself as a consumer.
23.
That
I beg to say that the Opposite Parties is not a service provider in an alleged
context of the complainant, and the complainant is not a consumer in the said
alleged context, and therefore there is no relationship as of consumer and
service provider, and if any disputes
arise such disputes is not a consumer disputes at all between the parties.
24.
That
I beg to say that the Opposite Parties is a company incorporated in accordance
with the Companies Act’ 1956, consequently on repeal of the said act in
accordance with the Companies Act’ 2013, under it’s incorporation of
certificate issued by ROC. The opposite parties act in accordance with the
provisions of Law.
25.
That
I beg to say that the disputes which has been raised by the complainant herein
is the disputes related to the dishonor of cheques, and not the consumer
disputes, therefore the complainant have no cause of action to invoke the
Hon’ble Forum jurisdiction in this regard.
26.
That
I beg to say that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in terms of
her prayer, before the Hon’ble Forum.
- That I beg to say that the
Application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, is not
maintainable either in facts or in its present form and the petitioner has
no cause of action for bringing this suit against the Opposite Parties as
the said application is speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted and
baseless as is barred by the Principles of Law and hence same is liable to
be rejected at once.
28.
That
I beg to say that in the facts and in the laws, it is totally evident from the
application itself that the complainant made her endavour to put the Hon’ble
Forum into motion to get her wrongful gains by procuring orders in terms of her
prayer before the Hon’ble Forum.
29.
That
I beg to say that in the facts and in the laws, it is totally evident from the
application itself that the complainant trying to miss utilizing the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.
30.
That
I beg to say that in the above circumstances, there is no cause of action for
the present proceedings by the Petitioner, against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite
Parties, accordingly pray that the Complaint be dismissed with costs.
31.
That
I beg to say that in the above circumstances, there is no deficiency in
service, and or unfair trade practices, on the part of the Opposite Parties,
rather the Opposite Parties is victim of the concocted story and wrongful
demand of the complainant.
32.
That
I beg to say that in view of the facts that the Opposite Parties is victim of
the purported alleged allegations and wrongful demand, the Opposite Parties
thereby seeking compensation as of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh ) only, for
harassment and mental anxiety, arising from the institution of the present
proceeding by the complainant, before the Hon’ble Forum.
33.
That
I beg to say that the Petitioner, neither has any cause of action nor the basis
for filling the present complaint and the Petitioner’s complaint is entirely
baseless and misconceived and deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone.
34.
That
I beg to say that the Complaint is false, frivolus and vexatious and has been
filed with the mala fide intention, and as such deserves to be dismissed with
special costs.
35.
That
I beg to say that the Petitioner, is not entitled to any relief as prayed in
the Complaint, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
36.
That
I beg to say that in the aforesaid circumstances, the Opposite Parties is
seeking the dismissal of the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, with exemplary
cost.
37.
That
I beg to say that the documents being annexed with the petition of complaint is
relied upon by the Opposite Parties herein in the present proceeding before
this Hon’ble Forum.
38.
That
I beg to say that the Complainant misconstrued and misrepresented the documents
annexed with her petition of complaint before the Hon’ble Forum.
39.
That
I beg to say that the documents annexed with the petition of complaint by the
complainant is not a share certificate and or in nature of certificate of
investment of any nature, such documents are of allotment letters with the
opposite parties.
40.
That
I beg to say that the present complaint should be dismissed at once in terms of
the provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, as the same
is found frivolous and vexatious one.
41.
That
I beg to say that all of my statements are true to my knowledge and belief.
D E P O N E N T
Identified by me
Advocate.
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Date : __________________2016.
Place : Kolkata.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment