Sunday, August 9, 2026

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

SOUTH 24 PARGANAS

Baruipur, Kolkata – 700144



Consumer Complaint No. 136 of 2025

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Rajiv Kumar Singh, & Anr.,

Complainants

-Versus-

 

M/s. Development Corporation Private Limited, & Ors.

Opposite Parties

 

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT

(On behalf of the Complainants)

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

Affidavit of Rajiv Kumar Singh, Son of Amar Kumar Singh, aged about _______years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, residing at Premises being no. 248, Motilal Gupta Road, Post Office – Haridevpur, Police Station – Haridevpur, Pin – 700082, District South 24 Parganas, and presently residing at Flat No. 4D, Tower 16, Genexx Valley, Joka, Kolkata – 700104, Mobile: 8961386682, Email: rksingh222@yahoo.co.in and Smt. Susmita Singh, Daughter of Jay Prakash Narayan, aged about _____years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation House Wife, residing at Premises being no. 248, Motilal Gupta Road, Post Office – Haridevpur, Police Station – Haridevpur, Pin – 700082, District South 24 Parganas, and presently residing at Flat No. 4D, Tower 16, Genexx Valley, Joka, Kolkata – 700104, Mobile: 8961386682, Email: rksingh222@yahoo.co.in ;

 

We, the above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

 

1.   We are the Complainants in the above-captioned Consumer Complaint and are fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are competent, authorised, and legally entitled to swear this Evidence on Affidavit in support of the complaint.

 

2.   That the statements made in the Consumer Complaint, including all annexures thereto, are true and correct to our knowledge, derived from records maintained by us in the ordinary course of our personal dealings, and believed to be true on legal advice. The contents of the Consumer Complaint may be read and treated as part and parcel of this affidavit, though not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

 

3.   That pursuant to our application dated 23.02.2021, we were duly allotted D-Type Residential Apartment No. 406, situated on the 3rd Floor, Zone-B1, Tower-B, in the housing project known as Solaris Joka Phase-1, vide Allotment Letter dated 11.03.2021, along with the right to use car/two-wheeler parking as specified therein.

 

4.   That thereafter, an Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022 was executed between us and the Opposite Parties, whereby the Opposite Parties unequivocally represented and undertook to complete construction of the said apartment and deliver peaceful and vacant possession thereof to us on or before 30.11.2023.

 

5.   That the total consideration price for the said apartment was fixed at Rs. 29,81,742/-, inclusive of GST and all applicable charges. In compliance with the demands raised by the Opposite Parties, we paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 29,98,074/-, which includes an excess payment of Rs. 16,332/- over and above the agreed consideration.

 

6.   That the entire consideration amount was paid partly from our own funds and partly through housing loans disbursed by ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. The Opposite Parties accepted all such payments without any demur, objection, or reservation.

 

7.   That notwithstanding receipt of the entire consideration amount and excess payment, the Opposite Parties failed and neglected to hand over possession of the said apartment within the stipulated time or even thereafter, and also failed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in our favour.

 

8.   That in May 2025, upon express demand raised by the Opposite Parties, we deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,590/- towards stamp duty and registration charges with the Government authority concerned. Despite such payment having been duly communicated, the Opposite Parties deliberately abstained from taking steps for execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance.

 

9.   That the Opposite Parties further collected advance maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 25,771/- from us on 02.01.2025, even though possession of the apartment was never delivered and no maintenance services were rendered to us.

 

10.                That despite repeated written requests and email communications, the Opposite Parties wilfully denied us access to the project site and did not permit inspection of the apartment or verification of construction status, even after receipt of the entire consideration amount, which conduct is arbitrary, unjustified, and lacking in transparency.

 

11.                That due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in delivery of possession, we have been subjected to continuous mental agony, harassment, and severe financial hardship, including the burden of servicing housing loans without deriving any benefit from the apartment for which payments were made.

 

12.                That being left with no alternative, we caused issuance of an Advocate’s Notice dated 14.07.2025, calling upon the Opposite Parties to hand over possession, execute and register the Deed of Conveyance, refund excess amounts, and compensate us for the losses suffered. The Opposite Parties failed to comply and instead issued evasive and untenable replies without addressing the core issues.

 

13.                That the acts, omissions, and conduct of the Opposite Parties constitute gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and clear breach of contractual obligations, rendering them liable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

14.                That the Photostat copy of the Agreement for Sale dated 2nd May, 2022, executed between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties in respect of D-Type Residential Apartment No. 406, Tower-B, Zone-B1, Solaris Joka Phase-1, is annexed to the Consumer Complaint and this affidavit and marked as Annexure – “A”. The said document clearly records the contractual obligations of the Opposite Parties, including the agreed consideration, specifications of the apartment, and the stipulated date of delivery of possession, and is therefore a material document for adjudication of the present dispute.

 

15.                That the Photostat copy of the Allotment Letter dated 11.03.2021, issued by the Opposite Parties in favour of the Complainants, is annexed and marked as Annexure – “B”.
The said Allotment Letter establishes the initial allotment of Apartment No. 406 along with parking rights and conclusively proves the relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties.

 

16.                That the Photostat copy of the Payin Draft bearing No. 733878 dated 04.06.2025, drawn on HDFC Bank for a sum of Rs. 2,72,064/-, together with the Customer Ledger dated 21.05.2025 issued by the Opposite Parties, are annexed collectively and marked as Annexure – “C”. The said documents clearly demonstrate the payments made by the Complainants towards the final disbursement and also establish that the Complainants have paid amounts in excess of the agreed consideration.

 

17.                That the Photostat copy of the GRIPS 2.0 Acknowledgment Receipt / Payment Summary dated 12.05.2025, evidencing payment of Rs. 1,15,590/- towards stamp duty and registration charges, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “D”. The said document proves that the Complainants acted strictly in compliance with the demand raised by the Opposite Parties and discharged their statutory obligations, despite the Opposite Parties’ failure to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance.

 

18.                That the Photostat copy of the Email dated 10.05.2025, issued by the Opposite Parties calling upon the Complainants to make payment of stamp duty and registration charges, is annexed and marked as Annexure – “E”. The said email establishes that the demand for stamp duty and registration emanated from the Opposite Parties themselves and that the Complainants acted pursuant thereto.

 

19.                That the Photostat copies of email communications exchanged between the parties, whereby the Complainants repeatedly sought permission to visit the project site and inspect the construction status of the apartment, are annexed collectively and marked as Annexure – “F”. The said communications clearly show that despite full payment having been made, the Opposite Parties deliberately denied site inspection, thereby acting in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner.

 

20.                That the Photostat copy of the Advocate’s Legal Notice dated 14.07.2025, along with postal receipts and track consignment reports evidencing service upon the Opposite Parties, are annexed collectively and marked as Annexure – “G”. The said documents establish that the Complainants made a final lawful demand seeking possession, execution of conveyance, refund, and compensation, prior to instituting the present consumer complaint.

 

21.                That the Photostat copy of the reply letter dated 22.07.2025 issued by the Opposite Party, together with the postal envelope, is annexed collectively and marked as Annexure – “H”. The said reply demonstrates the evasive stand taken by the Opposite Parties, denial of their contractual obligations, and failure to provide any justification for non-delivery of possession or non-registration of the Deed of Conveyance.

 

22.                That the Photostat copy of the rejoinder dated 01.08.2025 issued by the Complainants through their Advocate, along with the reply dated 13.08.2025 sent by the Opposite Parties, are annexed collectively and marked as Annexure – “I”. The said correspondence conclusively proves that despite repeated opportunities, the Opposite Parties failed to rectify their defaults, thereby compelling the Complainants to approach this Hon’ble Commission.

 

23.                That the documents annexed to the Consumer Complaint and relied upon in this Evidence on Affidavit, being Annexure “A” to Annexure “I”, are true photocopies of their respective originals and are essential for the just and effective adjudication of the present consumer dispute.

 

24.                That the Complainants most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to take the said Annexures on record and mark them as Exhibits, and read the same in evidence in support of the Consumer Complaint.

 

25.                That the Opposite Parties have duly entered appearance in the present Consumer Complaint. It is stated that Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their Written Version jointly, while Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their Written Versions separately. The Consumer Complainants are now dealing with and replying to the averments, allegations, and statements contained in the said Written Versions, strictly without prejudice to one another, and save and except what is herein specifically admitted, all other statements made therein are denied and disputed. The replies of the Complainants to the respective Written Versions of the Opposite Parties are set out hereunder.

 

26.                That the Complainants state that Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their Written Version in the present Consumer Complaint, the statements, averments, and contentions whereof are false, misleading, evasive, and contrary to the documents on record. Save and except what are matters of record, the Complainants deny each and every allegation made therein. The pleas taken by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to disclaim liability on the ground that they are mere landowners, not developers, or not service providers, are wholly untenable in law and fact, inasmuch as Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are consenting and confirming parties to the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022, have authorized development and sale of the project “Solaris Joka Phase-1,” have derived direct commercial benefit therefrom, and are jointly and severally responsible for delivery of possession and execution of the Deed of Conveyance. The objection raised on the basis of the arbitration clause is misconceived, as the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is independent, additional, and not ousted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The denials regarding receipt of consideration, delay in handing over possession beyond 30.11.2023, demand and acceptance of stamp duty, registration charges and advance maintenance, denial of site inspection, and failure to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance are contrary to the documentary evidence already exhibited by the Complainants. The Written Version of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 being vague and evasive, amounts to admission of material facts, and clearly establishes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The Complainants therefore reiterate and reaffirm all statements, averments, and prayers made in the Consumer Complaint, which may be read as an integral part of this Evidence on Affidavit.

 

27.                That the Complainants state that Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their respective Written Versions in the present Consumer Complaint, the contents whereof are false, misleading, self-contradictory, and deliberately evasive, and are therefore denied save and except what are matters of record. It is specifically denied that the Complainants committed any default in payment or are disentitled to relief. Opposite Party No. 3 has admitted being the Developer/Promoter of the project and execution of the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022, and Opposite Party No. 4 has throughout acted as the authorized signatory and representative of Opposite Party No. 3 and actively participated in the transaction; hence both are jointly and severally liable for performance of contractual and statutory obligations. The plea that the Complainants delayed payments or are liable to pay interest is false and is belied by the admitted fact that the Complainants have paid a total sum of Rs. 29,98,074/-, which exceeds the agreed consideration, resulting in an excess payment which has neither been refunded nor adjusted. The Opposite Parties’ demand and acceptance of advance maintenance charges, stamp duty, and registration fees conclusively establish that the apartment was treated as ready for possession, yet possession has not been handed over even after the contractual possession date of 30.11.2023. The denial of site inspection, failure to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance, and continued withholding of possession constitute gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The objection based on the arbitration clause and other preliminary pleas raised by Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 are misconceived in law and are rejected. The Written Versions of Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 being vague and evasive, deserve no credence, and the Complainants reiterate all averments and prayers made in the Consumer Complaint, which may be read as an integral part of this Evidence on Affidavit.

 

28.                That the Written Versions filed by the Opposite Parties are vague, evasive, and mutually inconsistent, and are intended only to delay and defeat the legitimate claims of the Complainants. The Opposite Parties have failed to disclose any lawful justification for the prolonged delay, nor have they produced any documentary evidence to support their allegations against the Complainants. The Complainants reiterate and reaffirm all statements, averments, and prayers made in the Consumer Complaint, which may be read as an integral part of this Evidence on Affidavit, and deny all contrary assertions made by the Opposite Parties.

 

29.                That we reserve our right to rely upon additional documents and materials, if so required, at the time of hearing with the leave of this Hon’ble Commission.

 

30.                That the statements, averments, and factual assertions contained in the Consumer Complaint / Application filed before this Hon’ble Commission, together with all annexures and documents appended thereto, are true and correct to our knowledge, derived from records maintained by us in the ordinary course of events and from personal dealings with the Opposite Parties, and are believed by us to be true on the basis of legal advice received. The contents of the said Consumer Complaint have not been reiterated herein for the sake of brevity; however, the same may be read, construed, and treated as an integral and inseparable part of this Evidence on Affidavit for all purposes whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                      DEPONENTS

 

 

 

Verification

 

We, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of our above affidavit are true and correct to our knowledge, and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Verified this ………….the day of …………….2026, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                   DEPONENTS

                                                                   Identified by me,

 

                                                                   Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

 

Advocate.

Dated :………………………………2026.

Place :Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.                  

 

 

 

 

 

N O T A R Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment