Before the Hon’ble District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Kolkata Unit – II (Central)
8-B,
Nellie Sengupta Sarani, 7th Floor, Kolkata – 700087
CC / 304 / 2020
In the matter of:
Sri Sutonu Kanjilal,
________Complainant
-
Versus
–
Sri Santanu Kanjilal
& Others,
___________Opposite
Parties
Reply on Affidavit by the Opposite
Party No. 1, Sri Santanu Kanjilal, to the Questions Put Forward by the
Complainant
AFFIDAVIT
I,
Sri Santanu Kanjilal, Son of Sri Gouranga Kanjilal, aged about 54 years,
by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, residing at premises being no. 149/F,
Picnic Garden Road, Police Station – Tiljala, Kolkata – 700039, being the Opposite Party No. 1
in the present consumer proceeding, do hereby respectfully submit my reply to
the questions put forward by the Complainant after submission of my evidence on
affidavit as follows;
Question
1:
Are you acquainted with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and
any other laws for the time being in force?
Reply: Yes, I am fully
acquainted with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well as
other relevant laws in force. I understand that the Act provides remedies for
consumers who have received deficient services or goods, and lays down the legal
framework for adjudication of consumer disputes. However, as I have stated in
my affidavit, the Complainant does not qualify as a consumer under Section 2(7)
of the Act, and no goods or services have been provided to him by me.
Question
2:
Do you know the meaning of the words "non-joinder" and
"misjoinder" of parties?
Reply: Yes, I understand
the meaning of these legal terms. "Non-joinder" refers to the failure
to include a necessary party in a proceeding, which may lead to dismissal, and
"misjoinder" refers to improperly joining a party who is not
necessary or proper in the proceeding. As I have stated in my affidavit, the
present complaint suffers from both misjoinder and non-joinder, as parties
directly involved in the development or the alleged agreement have not been
properly joined, while I, who have no contractual or consumer relationship with
the Complainant, am wrongly included.
Question
3:
Is it not correct to say that the Complainant is your brother by full blood?
Reply: Yes, it is correct
that the Complainant is my younger brother by full blood. However, this
familial relationship does not create any privity of contract, commercial
transaction, or consumer relationship. The fact that he is my brother is
irrelevant to the alleged consumer claim and does not entitle him to claim
ownership or rights over the flat or any consideration from me.
Question
4:
Is it not correct to say that you and the Opposite Party No. 2 entered into an
agreement for development with Opposite Party No. 3, who happens to be the
owner of the land in question, for the purpose of the development of the
premises in question?
Reply: Yes, it is correct
that I, together with Opposite Party No. 2, entered into an agreement with
Opposite Party No. 3 for development of the land. This agreement was strictly
between the developers (me and Opposite Party No. 2) and the landowner
(Opposite Party No. 3). The Complainant had no involvement in this agreement
and therefore holds no legal or contractual right under it. This fact is consistent
with my affidavit where I explained the nature of the development arrangement
and the financial contributions made by me.
Question
5:
Is it not correct to say that a G+III storied building was constructed at the
premises in question upon obtaining building plan from the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation vide Building Sanction Plan No. 2015120070 dated 13/05/2015?
Reply: Yes, it is correct
that the building was constructed according to the sanctioned plan. However,
the Complainant had no role in obtaining the building sanction, nor in the
construction or financing of the project. He cannot claim any consumer or
developer-related rights arising out of this construction. My involvement was
entirely as a developer in partnership with Opposite Party No. 2 and under the
agreement with the landowner, Opposite Party No. 3.
Question
6:
Is it not correct to say that the opposite parties, including you, entered into
an agreement for sale with the Complainant on 20/06/2017 for selling the flat
on the third floor of the building being Flat No. 3A and car parking in
question at a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- out of the Developer's
allocation?
Reply: No, it is not
correct. I never signed or entered into any such agreement for sale with the
Complainant or any other person in his favour. The alleged agreement dated
20/06/2017 was prepared using my signature on blank pages and stamp paper that
were in my office, without my knowledge or consent.
The
Complainant had no financial capacity to purchase the flat, and the memo of
consideration showing cash payments is false and fabricated. There were no
witnesses to these transactions, and the advocate named in the agreement, Sri
Subhajit Bangal, is alleged to be acting in collusion with the Complainant and
Opposite Party No. 2.
As
I stated in my affidavit, I first came to know about the alleged agreement from
the Complainant himself, and I reserve my right to pursue civil and criminal
action against the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2, and the advocate for
forgery, conspiracy, and other unlawful acts.
Thus,
the Complainant cannot claim any consumer rights or any relief under the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against me, as there is no contract, service, or
transaction between us.
Question
7:
Is it not correct to say that in the said Agreement for Sale dated 20/06/2017
you and the Opposite Party No. 2 represented the Opposite Party No. 3 as his
constituted attorney?
Reply: No, it is not correct. At no point did I or Opposite Party No. 2
act as constituted attorney for Opposite Party No. 3 in relation to the alleged
agreement with the Complainant. The alleged Agreement for Sale was never
executed by me with the Complainant, and I never authorized anyone to act on my
behalf or represent me as attorney in this regard.
Question
8:
Is it not correct to say that your application for referring the said Agreement
for Sale dated 20/06/2017 to the expert was rejected by the Learned Court vide
order dated 19.07.2024? If yes, then have you preferred any revisional
application before the Higher Forum?
Reply: While it is correct that my application for expert examination
was not allowed by the Court, the fact that the document was presented does not
establish its genuineness. I have reserved my right to pursue appropriate civil
and criminal proceedings for forgery, conspiracy, and unauthorized use of my
signature, and may file necessary applications in competent forums.
Question
9:
Is it not correct to say that the possession of the flat and car parking space
in question were delivered to the Complainant in part performance of the
contract?
Reply: No, it is not correct. I never entered into any agreement with
the Complainant, and no part performance by way of delivery of possession took
place. Any alleged possession claimed by the Complainant is without my consent
and is factually incorrect.
Question
10:
Is it not correct to say that the possession of the property as covered in the
said Agreement for Sale dated 20/04/2018 was delivered to the Complainant as
the entire consideration money had already been paid?
Reply: No, it is not correct. I never received any consideration from
the Complainant for the alleged flat or car parking. The claimed payments and
possession are entirely fabricated, as stated in my affidavit.
Question
11:
Is it not correct to say that the entire consideration money was received by
you and Opposite Party No. 2 in cash and work of installation of grill by the
Complainant?
Reply: No, it is not correct. I have never received any cash or services
from the Complainant. The alleged consideration is false, and the claim that I
accepted payment or services is fabricated.
Question
12:
Have you initiated any proceeding claiming you did not receive the entire
consideration money prior to delivery of possession?
Reply: No formal proceeding was required, as I have never received any
consideration or delivered possession. I have reserved my rights to pursue
civil or criminal action against the Complainant and others involved for
forgery and conspiracy.
Question
13:
Have you initiated any proceeding for rescission or cancellation of the
Agreement for Sale dated 20/06/2017?
Reply: No, because I never executed or consented to the alleged
agreement. The agreement is forged and fabricated, and I reserve my right to
initiate proceedings against the Complainant and associated parties for
forgery, misrepresentation, and conspiracy.
Question
14:
Is it not correct to say that the Agreement for Sale dated 20/06/2017 is still
subsisting and binding?
Reply: No, it is not correct. The alleged agreement is null, void, and
has no legal validity, as I never executed it and never received any
consideration.
Question
15:
Is it not correct to say that the opposite parties were requested to execute
and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant on numerous
occasions?
Reply: No, it is not correct. Any such requests were based on a forged
agreement, which I do not recognize and have never consented to.
Question
16:
It is suggested that your signature was never taken on blank paper as alleged
by you.
Reply: I deny this suggestion. My signature was indeed misused on blank
pages and stamp papers, as I have clearly stated in my affidavit.
Question
17:
Is it not correct to say that you admitted your signature in the Agreement for
Sale by filing an application for expert examination?
Reply: It is correct that I sought expert examination to determine the
authenticity of the signature, but this does not amount to admission of the
document. The application was for verification of forgery, not for recognition
of the agreement as valid.
Question
18:
Is it not correct to say that the Agreement for Sale was engrossed on stamp
paper of Rs. 10/- dated 27/05/2017?
Reply: The date and stamp paper are irrelevant to the issue of forgery.
I never executed or authorized execution of the alleged agreement, regardless
of the stamp paper used.
Question
19:
It is suggested that you had access to your office prior to filing of this
proceeding and were never ousted.
Reply: I deny this
suggestion. I was unlawfully ousted from my office by the Complainant and
Opposite Party No. 2 during the period of construction, as stated in my
affidavit.
Question
20:
Is it not correct to say that the Complainant, you, and two others are partners
of M/s Om Tara Ma Construction Group?
Reply: No, it is not correct. I have never been a partner with the
Complainant or others in any such firm. My development work was carried out
with Opposite Party No. 2 and under agreement with the landowner, Opposite
Party No. 3.
Question
21:
Is it not correct to say that the Complainant represented the partners of M/s
Om Tara Ma Construction in a proceeding before the National Commission in
Revision Petition No. 2554 of 2015?
Reply: I have no knowledge of this representation, but in any case, it
does not establish any contractual or consumer relationship between me and the
Complainant.
Question
22:
Is it not correct to say that in all pages of the Agreement for Sale you put
your signature including stamp paper?
Reply: No, it is not correct. My signature was misused on blank pages
and stamp papers without my knowledge or consent, which forms the basis of my
allegations of forgery.
Question
23:
Have you initiated any proceeding against the Complainant for manufacturing the
Agreement for Sale?
Reply: I reserve my right to initiate civil and criminal proceedings
against the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2, and the advocate involved, for
forgery, conspiracy, and unlawful use of my signature.
Question
24:
It is suggested that the evidence given by you is untrue.
Reply: I deny this
suggestion. The evidence given in my affidavit is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief. The allegations made by the Complainant are false,
fabricated, and part of a mala fide attempt to obtain undue advantage.
All
the facts stated in my affidavit are reaffirmed. The Complainant is attempting
to misuse the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission, and the alleged agreement
is a forgery. There is no consumer dispute, deficiency in service, or unfair
trade practice on my part. The complaint is entirely baseless, vexatious, and
filed with mala fide intent, and I therefore seek dismissal of the complaint
with exemplary costs.
Sri Santanu Kanjilal
Opposite Party No.1
Identified by
me,
Advocate
Drafted & Prepared in my Chamber;
Advocate
Place: Alipore, Kolkata
Date: __________ 2025
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment