REPLY ON AFFIDAVIT Y THE CONSUMER COMPLAINANTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTY

 

BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24 PARGANAS AT BARUIPUR

 

Consumer Complaint No. 136 of 2025

 

Rajiv Kumar Singh & Anr.

…Complainants

 

-Versus-

 

M/s. Development Corporation Private Limited & Ors.

…Opposite Parties

 

REPLY ON AFFIDAVIT Y THE CONSUMER COMPLAINANTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 3 & 4

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I, Rajiv Kumar Singh, Son of Amar Kumar Singh, aged about ____ years, by faith Hindu, by occupation Business, presently residing at Flat No. 4D, Tower-16, Genexx Valley, Joka, Kolkata – 700104, and Smt. Susmita Singh, Daughter of Jay Prakash Narayan, aged about ____ years, by faith Hindu, by occupation Housewife, presently residing at the aforesaid address, the Complainants above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows;

 

1.   That I have already filed my Evidence on Affidavit before this Hon'ble Commission. Pursuant to the Questionnaire filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, I am answering the questions hereinbelow according to my personal knowledge, records available with me and legal advice received.

 

2.   That the answers to the Questionnaire are as follows;

 

Question No. 1

 

Mr. and Mrs. Singh what are your respective educational qualifications?

 

Answer:

The Complainants respectfully state that the educational qualifications of the Complainants have no bearing whatsoever on the adjudication of the present consumer dispute. The present proceeding concerns the failure of the Opposite Parties to perform their contractual and statutory obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale.

 

Without prejudice to the above, the Complainants state that they are sufficiently educated to understand the nature of the transaction entered into with the Opposite Parties and have throughout acted on the basis of the representations made by the Developer as well as upon professional legal advice wherever necessary. The transaction was entered into after due deliberation and the documents executed by the parties were understood to the best of their knowledge.

 

Question No. 2

 

Mr. and Mrs. Singh please tell this Learned Commission under which provision of law you filed a joint evidence?

 

Answer:

The Complainants respectfully state that they are joint purchasers, joint allottees, joint consumers and joint complainants in respect of the self-same residential apartment. The cause of action is common, the reliefs claimed are common and the facts deposed to are based upon the common transaction between the parties.

 

The Evidence on Affidavit has therefore been jointly affirmed by both the Complainants in respect of facts within their personal knowledge and based upon the records maintained by them. Such joint evidence is neither prohibited under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 nor under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations. The Hon'ble Consumer Commission possesses ample procedural discretion to receive evidence by affidavit in the interest of justice.

 

Question No. 3

 

In connection to the preceding question I say that none of you are capacitated to adduce evidence jointly under any provision of law and therefore the purported evidence filed by you cannot be taken into account under any manner whatsoever. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is wholly false, legally misconceived and is emphatically denied.

The Complainants state that they are joint consumers who jointly entered into the Agreement for Sale, jointly made payments, jointly corresponded with the Opposite Parties and jointly suffered the consequences of the Opposite Parties' failure to deliver possession and execute the Deed of Conveyance.

Every material fact stated in the Evidence on Affidavit is within the personal knowledge of both the Complainants and is supported by documentary evidence already annexed with the Complaint and the Evidence on Affidavit. The objection raised by the Opposite Parties is merely technical in nature and is intended to divert attention from their admitted contractual defaults.

 

The Evidence on Affidavit is perfectly maintainable and deserves to be read in evidence.

 

Question No. 4

 

Are you well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the instant case?

 

Answer:

Yes.

Both the Complainants are fully acquainted with every material fact and circumstance relating to the present dispute. The entire transaction, commencing from submission of the application for allotment, execution of the Agreement for Sale, payment of the consideration amount, payment of stamp duty and registration charges, exchange of correspondence, issuance of legal notice and institution of the present complaint has been undertaken jointly by the Complainants.

 

The statements made in the Complaint as well as in the Evidence on Affidavit are based upon their personal knowledge and the records maintained by them.

 

Question No. 5

 

How did both of you come to know about the Project "Solaris Joka Phase-1"?

 

Answer:

The Complainants came to know about the housing project known as "Solaris Joka Phase-1" through the promotional activities, advertisements and representations made by the Developer and its authorised representatives. Thereafter, the Complainants contacted the sales office of the Opposite Parties, visited the project location and made necessary enquiries regarding the proposed development.

 

The representatives of the Opposite Parties represented that the project would be completed within the stipulated period and that possession would be delivered in accordance with the Agreement for Sale. Relying upon such representations and assurances, the Complainants decided to purchase the residential apartment.

 

Question No. 6

 

From where did both of you purchase the Application Form for Direct Allotment?

 

Answer:

The Application Form for Direct Allotment was obtained from the authorised office/sales office of the Developer in the ordinary course of the booking process. The said Application Form was supplied by the representatives of the Opposite Parties themselves.

 

The Opposite Parties are in custody of their original records relating to allotment and are fully aware of the source from which the Application Form was issued.

 

Question No. 7

 

Had both of you gone through/read the said Application Form?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants had gone through the Application Form before submitting the same. The Application Form formed part of the preliminary documentation relating to the proposed allotment.

 

However, the contractual rights and obligations of the parties are ultimately governed by the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022, which superseded all prior negotiations and preliminary documents.

 

Question No. 8

 

If your answer to Question No. 7 is "YES", then please tell this Learned Commission what were the contents of the said Application Form?

 

Answer:

The Application Form principally contained particulars relating to:

(a) the names and addresses of the applicants;

(b) the category and type of apartment applied for;

(c) the proposed project particulars;

(d) the tentative sale consideration;

(e) the proposed payment schedule;

(f) declarations and undertakings of the applicants; and

(g) other preliminary terms governing allotment.

 

The Application Form was only a preliminary document preceding the execution of the Agreement for Sale. The rights and obligations of the parties thereafter stood governed by the registered contractual documents executed between them.

The Application Form itself is the best evidence of its contents.

 

Question No. 9

 

If your answer to Question No. 7 is "NO", then please tell this Learned Commission what prevented you from reading the said Application Form?

 

Answer:

This question does not arise since the answer to Question No. 7 is in the affirmative.

 

Question No. 10

 

Did both of you read and sign the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants read and signed the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022 after understanding its material terms and conditions. The Agreement clearly records the obligations undertaken by the Opposite Parties, including the agreed consideration amount, description of the apartment and the stipulated date for handing over possession.

 

The Complainants have throughout acted in accordance with the Agreement by making payments as demanded from time to time. The present proceedings have become necessary solely because the Opposite Parties failed to perform their reciprocal obligations under the Agreement.

 

Question No. 11

 

Is the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022 registered? Say Yes/No.

 

Answer:

No.

 

The Agreement for Sale has not yet been registered because the Opposite Parties failed and neglected to execute and register the same despite having received the entire sale consideration together with stamp duty and registration charges from the Complainants.

 

The Complainants duly deposited the requisite stamp duty and registration charges strictly in terms of the demand raised by the Opposite Parties. Notwithstanding such compliance, the Opposite Parties deliberately abstained from completing the registration process.

The failure to register the conveyance is entirely attributable to the Opposite Parties.

 

Question No. 12

 

What type of Flat did you apply for?

 

Answer:

The Complainants applied for and were allotted D-Type Residential Apartment No. 406, situated on the 3rd Floor, Tower-B, Zone-B1, in the housing project known as Solaris Joka Phase-1, together with the right to use the parking facility as mentioned in the allotment documents and the Agreement for Sale.

 

The particulars of the apartment are fully reflected in the Allotment Letter dated 11.03.2021 and the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022, which have already been produced before this Hon'ble Commission and may be read as part of this reply.

 

Question No. 13

 

What is the consideration amount of the flat in dispute?

 

Answer:

The total agreed sale consideration of the flat in dispute, namely D-Type Residential Apartment No. 406, Tower-B, Zone-B1, Solaris Joka Phase-1, as stipulated in the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022, is Rs.29,81,742/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Two only) inclusive of GST and other applicable charges.

 

The Complainants state that although the agreed consideration was Rs.29,81,742/-, they have in fact paid an aggregate sum of Rs.29,98,074/-, which is Rs.16,332/- in excess of the agreed consideration. The said excess amount has neither been refunded nor adjusted by the Opposite Parties. The Customer Ledger, bank records and payment receipts already produced before this Hon'ble Commission clearly establish the aforesaid facts.

 

Question No. 14

 

Did you read the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022 before signing the same?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants carefully read the material terms and conditions contained in the Agreement for Sale before executing the same. The Agreement clearly stipulated the reciprocal obligations of the parties, including the description of the apartment, consideration amount, payment schedule, specifications, rights of the purchasers and the obligation of the Developer to complete construction and deliver peaceful possession on or before the agreed date.

 

The Complainants accepted and faithfully complied with all obligations cast upon them under the Agreement. Unfortunately, despite receiving the entire consideration amount together with other charges, the Opposite Parties failed to perform their corresponding contractual obligations.

 

Question No. 15

 

What is the measurement of the flat in dispute?

 

Answer:

The flat in question is more fully and correctly described in the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022 as well as in the Allotment Letter.

 

The exact super built-up area, carpet area and other measurements are specifically recorded in the Agreement for Sale, which forms part of the record of this proceeding.

The Complainants rely upon the Agreement itself as the best documentary evidence regarding the measurements and specifications of the apartment.

 

Question No. 16

 

Have you paid the consideration amount as per the Payment Schedule "C", Part-4, as mentioned in the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants have substantially complied with every demand lawfully raised by the Opposite Parties and have ultimately paid an aggregate amount of Rs.29,98,074/-, which exceeds the agreed sale consideration.

 

Wherever demands were raised by the Opposite Parties, the Complainants duly honoured the same within a reasonable time. At no point did the Opposite Parties terminate the Agreement or cancel the allotment on account of any alleged default. On the contrary, after accepting the entire sale consideration, the Opposite Parties demanded stamp duty, registration charges and maintenance charges, thereby unequivocally acknowledging that the transaction was subsisting and continuing.

 

Accordingly, the allegation that the Complainants failed to comply with the payment obligations is wholly false and contrary to the documentary records maintained by the Opposite Parties themselves.

 

Question No. 17

 

If your reply to Question No.16 is "Yes", then show the documents/receipts (each separately) of the payment as per our Demand Invoice.

 

Answer:

The Complainants respectfully state that all payment receipts, bank statements, customer ledger, demand invoices and other payment documents have already been annexed to the Consumer Complaint as well as the Evidence on Affidavit.

 

Without limitation, the Complainants rely upon;

(a) Customer Ledger issued by the Opposite Parties;

(b) Bank payment records;

(c) Pay-in Slip/Pay Order documents;

(d) Demand Invoices issued by the Opposite Parties;

(e) GRIPS acknowledgement regarding stamp duty payment;

(f) Other documentary evidence already exhibited before this Hon'ble Commission.

 

Each of the aforesaid documents evidences the payments made by the Complainants and collectively establishes that the Complainants have discharged their contractual financial obligations.

 

Question No. 18

 

Was the Evidence-in-Chief prepared under your instructions?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Evidence on Affidavit has been prepared strictly under the instructions of both the Complainants after verification of all relevant documents, correspondence, payment records and the pleadings already filed before this Hon'ble Commission.

Before affirming the affidavit, the Complainants carefully read and understood its contents and found the same to be true and correct according to their knowledge and belief.

 

Question No. 19

 

Did both of you put your signature on the Evidence-in-Chief?

 

Answer:

Yes.

Both the Complainants personally signed the Evidence on Affidavit after reading, understanding and verifying its contents. The affidavit has been duly affirmed before the competent authority in accordance with law.

 

Question No. 20

 

As you mentioned in paragraph No.3 of your Evidence-in-Chief about the right to use two-wheeler parking, now I ask you whether it is mentioned in the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022? If you say "Yes", then please specify the clause of the Agreement.

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Agreement for Sale read as a whole records the allotment of the apartment together with the parking rights made available to the Complainants. The Agreement itself is the best evidence of its contents.

 

The Complainants respectfully submit that they are not expected to reproduce every clause of the Agreement from memory during cross-examination. The Agreement for Sale has already been produced before this Hon'ble Commission and the relevant clause may kindly be referred to from the original document itself.

 

The rights of the parties are governed by the written Agreement and not by oral recollection of individual clauses.

 

Question No. 21

 

Are you aware of all the clauses of the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022? Say Yes or No.

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants are aware of the material terms and conditions governing their rights and obligations under the Agreement.

 

However, the Agreement is a comprehensive legal document consisting of numerous clauses. The document itself constitutes the best evidence of its contents, and its interpretation must be made upon reading the Agreement as a whole rather than by relying solely upon memory.

 

Question No. 22

 

Can you specifically say what is written in Clause No.33 of the Agreement for Sale dated 02.05.2022? Please specify.

 

Answer:

The Complainants respectfully submit that Clause No.33 forms part of the written Agreement already on record.

 

The Agreement speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its contents.

 

The Complainants rely upon the contents of Clause No.33 exactly as incorporated in the Agreement and deny any interpretation inconsistent with the written contractual terms.

 

The contents of the Agreement cannot be varied, enlarged or contradicted by oral testimony, and therefore the document itself deserves to be read.

 

Question No. 23

 

After receiving the Demand Invoice/Letter dated 09.10.2024 what steps did you take?

 

Answer:

Immediately upon receipt of the Demand Letter dated 09.10.2024, the Complainants examined the demands raised by the Opposite Parties and thereafter continued to comply with the payment requirements as communicated by them from time to time.

 

The Complainants maintained regular communication with the Opposite Parties, sought clarification wherever necessary and continued requesting completion of the transaction, execution of the Deed of Conveyance and delivery of possession.

 

The subsequent conduct of the Opposite Parties in demanding stamp duty, registration charges and maintenance charges clearly establishes that they accepted the Complainants' compliance and never treated the Agreement as terminated.

 

Question No. 24

 

Did you go through the Letter dated 09.10.2024?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants carefully went through the contents of the Letter dated 09.10.2024.

After considering the demands made therein, the Complainants continued to correspond with the Opposite Parties and acted bona fide by complying with the demands raised from time to time.

 

The subsequent payments made by the Complainants, including payment of stamp duty and registration charges as demanded by the Opposite Parties, clearly establish that the Complainants acted diligently and in good faith throughout the transaction.

 

 

 

 

Question No. 25

 

Have you understood the contents of the Letter dated 09.10.2024?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants state that they carefully read and understood the contents of the Letter dated 09.10.2024 issued by the Opposite Parties. Upon receipt thereof, the Complainants acted bona fide and took steps to comply with the lawful demands raised by the Opposite Parties. At no point did the Complainants intend to avoid or delay compliance with any legitimate obligation under the Agreement for Sale.

 

It is submitted that the subsequent conduct of the Opposite Parties themselves demonstrates that they accepted the continuation of the contractual relationship, as they thereafter demanded further payments towards stamp duty, registration charges and maintenance charges. Such conduct clearly establishes that the Agreement for Sale remained operative and that the Complainants were treated as continuing purchasers.

 

Question No. 26

 

Did you reply to the Letter dated 09.10.2024?

 

Answer:

The Complainants state that after receipt of the said letter they remained in continuous communication with the Opposite Parties through personal visits, telephonic discussions, electronic mail and subsequent correspondence.

 

The Complainants substantially complied with the demands made by the Opposite Parties and thereafter acted upon the further communications issued by the Opposite Parties, including the demand for payment of stamp duty and registration charges.

 

The entire course of correspondence between the parties already forms part of the records of the present proceeding and may be read as part of this answer.

 

Question No. 27

 

After receiving the Email dated 04.07.2025 what steps did you take?

 

Answer:

Immediately after receiving the Email dated 04.07.2025, the Complainants examined the contents thereof and acted with utmost promptitude and bona fides.

 

The Complainants continued to pursue the Opposite Parties for completion of the transaction, requested execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance, repeatedly requested delivery of possession and complied with every lawful requirement communicated by the Opposite Parties.

 

Despite the complete cooperation extended by the Complainants, the Opposite Parties failed to complete the conveyance process and also failed to hand over peaceful possession of the apartment.

 

The Complainants further state that their conduct throughout the transaction clearly establishes their readiness and willingness to perform every contractual obligation.

 

Question No. 28

 

Did you go through the Email dated 04.07.2025?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants carefully read and understood the contents of the Email dated 04.07.2025 before taking further steps in the matter.

 

The Complainants thereafter acted upon the communications of the Opposite Parties in good faith and expected that the Opposite Parties would honour their contractual obligations by completing the registration process and handing over possession of the apartment.

 

Question No. 29

 

Have you understood the contents of the Email dated 04.07.2025?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants clearly understood the contents of the said Email and acted in accordance therewith.

 

 

The Complainants never refused to comply with any lawful demand. Rather, they continuously cooperated with the Opposite Parties with the legitimate expectation that the transaction would finally be concluded by execution of the Deed of Conveyance and delivery of possession.

 

Unfortunately, despite such cooperation, the Opposite Parties continued to delay the matter without assigning any legally sustainable reason.

 

Question No. 30

 

Did you make payments in terms of the reply dated 04.07.2025?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants state that they made payments as demanded by the Opposite Parties from time to time. Apart from payment of the agreed consideration amount, the Complainants also deposited the stamp duty and registration charges amounting to Rs.1,15,590/- as specifically demanded by the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Parties accepted all such payments without protest or reservation.

 

After accepting the said payments, the Opposite Parties were under a contractual and statutory obligation to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance and hand over peaceful possession. Their failure to do so constitutes gross deficiency in service and breach of contractual obligations.

 

Question No. 31

 

I put it to you that you did not make the payment as per our Demand Invoice dated 09.10.2024 as well as mail dated 04.07.2025.

 

Answer:

The suggestion is false, baseless, misleading and emphatically denied.

 

The documentary evidence already produced before this Hon'ble Commission clearly establishes that the Complainants made the payments demanded by the Opposite Parties from time to time.

 

The Customer Ledger maintained by the Opposite Parties themselves records receipt of payments made by the Complainants.

 

Moreover, had there been any subsisting default on the part of the Complainants, the Opposite Parties would never have demanded stamp duty, registration charges or advance maintenance charges, nor would they have continued processing the transaction.

 

Their own conduct completely demolishes the allegation now sought to be raised.

 

Question No. 32

 

I put it to you that whatever amount you have allegedly claimed is incorrect.

 

Answer:

The suggestion is wholly false and is denied.

Every amount claimed in the Complaint has been computed strictly on the basis of documentary evidence including:

(a) the Agreement for Sale;

(b) the Customer Ledger issued by the Opposite Parties;

(c) payment receipts;

(d) bank records;

(e) demand letters;

(f) GRIPS payment acknowledgement;

(g) correspondence exchanged between the parties.

 

The figures mentioned in the Complaint are neither arbitrary nor imaginary but are fully supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.

 

The Opposite Parties have not produced any authentic document disproving the correctness of the figures relied upon by the Complainants.

 

Question No. 33

 

You did not make any extra payment to the Company.

 

Answer:

The suggestion is categorically denied.

 

The Complainants state that against the agreed consideration amount of Rs.29,81,742/-, they have paid an aggregate amount of Rs.29,98,074/-, resulting in an excess payment of Rs.16,332/-.

 

Apart from the aforesaid excess payment, the Complainants also deposited Rs.1,15,590/- towards stamp duty and registration charges and further paid advance maintenance charges of Rs.25,771/- on the demand of the Opposite Parties.

 

These payments stand fully established from the documentary evidence already produced before this Hon'ble Commission.

 

Question No. 34

 

Are you liable to pay delayed interest of Rs.2,35,174/- after partial waiver?

 

Answer:

No.

The Complainants specifically deny any liability whatsoever towards the alleged delayed interest claimed by the Opposite Parties.

 

The alleged claim is arbitrary, unilateral, contrary to the conduct of the Opposite Parties and unsupported by law.

After accepting the entire sale consideration, accepting stamp duty and registration charges and collecting advance maintenance charges, the Opposite Parties cannot subsequently seek to impose an arbitrary demand for delayed interest.

 

If there had been any genuine outstanding dues, the Opposite Parties would not have proceeded with the process for registration nor demanded statutory charges payable immediately before execution of the conveyance.

 

The alleged claim is therefore an afterthought devised solely to justify the unlawful delay in handing over possession.

 

Question No. 35

 

Did you receive the replies of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 against your legal notices before filing the instant case?

 

Answer:

Yes.

The Complainants received replies issued on behalf of the Opposite Parties in response to the legal notice served through their learned Advocate.

 

However, the replies neither resolved the disputes nor offered any practical solution for handing over possession or executing the Deed of Conveyance.

 

The replies merely sought to deny liability without addressing the admitted delay in performance of the contractual obligations.

 

Question No. 36

 

If your answer to Question No.35 is "YES", then please produce the same before this Learned Commission.

 

Answer:

The replies received from the Opposite Parties have already been annexed to the Consumer Complaint and have also been relied upon in the Evidence on Affidavit as part of the documentary evidence.

 

The said replies are already before this Hon'ble Commission and may kindly be treated as part of the evidence on record.

 

The Complainants respectfully rely upon the said replies as they clearly demonstrate that despite repeated opportunities, the Opposite Parties failed to justify the prolonged delay in handing over possession, failed to undertake execution of the Deed of Conveyance and failed to perform their contractual obligations.

 

Question No. 37

 

If your answer to Question No.35 is "YES", then state the contents of the reply of your legal notices?

 

Answer:

The Complainants state that the replies issued by Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 were evasive, self-serving and devoid of any bona fide intention to resolve the dispute. The Opposite Parties attempted to justify their inordinate delay by raising untenable allegations regarding alleged outstanding dues and delayed payment, despite the fact that they had accepted the entire sale consideration together with additional amounts towards stamp duty, registration charges and advance maintenance.

 

The replies did not disclose any lawful reason for the failure to hand over possession of the apartment within the contractual period, nor did they furnish any satisfactory explanation for the failure to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance after accepting the statutory registration charges. The replies also failed to address the repeated requests made by the Complainants for inspection of the apartment and delivery of possession.

 

The Complainants respectfully state that the replies themselves demonstrate the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Parties.

 

Question No. 38

 

What are the reliefs you sought for in your Petition of Complaint?

 

Answer:

The Complainants have sought the following principal reliefs before this Hon'ble Commission:

(a) A direction upon the Opposite Parties to hand over peaceful, vacant and lawful possession of the scheduled apartment.

(b) A direction upon the Opposite Parties to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants.

(c) Refund or adjustment of the excess amount collected from the Complainants.

(d) Refund of all unlawful and excess charges, if found payable.

(e) Compensation for prolonged delay in handing over possession, mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the Complainants.

(f) Interest wherever legally admissible.

(g) Litigation costs.

(h) Such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

 

The reliefs claimed are fully supported by the pleadings and documentary evidence already on record.

 

Question No. 39

 

How do you claim yourself as a consumer of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4? Please explain.

 

Answer:

The Complainants state that they are "Consumers" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

The apartment was booked exclusively for residential purposes and not for resale, commercial exploitation or investment.

 

 

The Complainants hired the services of Opposite Party No.3 as the Developer/Promoter for construction, completion, delivery and execution of the conveyance of the residential apartment after paying valuable consideration.

 

Opposite Party No.4 acted throughout as the authorised representative and signatory of Opposite Party No.3 and actively participated in the entire transaction.

 

The relationship between the parties is therefore that of consumer and service provider. Consequently, the dispute squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Question No. 40

 

I put it to you that your Complaint is filed beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is false and emphatically denied.

 

The present Complaint has been instituted before the competent Consumer Commission having pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

The valuation of the Complaint has been correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the applicable law governing pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

The Opposite Parties have not produced any material whatsoever to demonstrate that this Hon'ble Commission lacks jurisdiction.

The objection is therefore wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected.

 

Question No. 41

 

I put to you that both in the Complaint and in the Affidavit of Evidence you have made deliberate incorrect statements on oath and are guilty of the crime of perjury. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is absolutely false, malicious and emphatically denied.

 

Every statement contained in the Complaint as well as in the Evidence on Affidavit has been made on the basis of personal knowledge, official records, correspondence exchanged between the parties and documents received from the Opposite Parties themselves.

 

No statement has been intentionally or knowingly made falsely.

 

The allegation of perjury has been made without any factual foundation and appears to have been raised merely to intimidate the Complainants and divert attention from the admitted defaults committed by the Opposite Parties.

 

The Complainants reiterate that every statement made by them is true to their knowledge and belief.

 

Question No. 42

 

I put to you that you have not stated the correct state of affairs either in the Complaint or in the Affidavit of Evidence. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is denied.

 

The Complaint and the Evidence on Affidavit faithfully narrate the true facts of the transaction from the date of allotment till institution of the present proceeding.

 

Every material event has been supported by documentary evidence, including the Agreement for Sale, Allotment Letter, Customer Ledger, payment records, GRIPS payment receipt, emails, legal notices and replies.

 

The Opposite Parties have failed to point out any specific factual statement which is incorrect.

 

The allegation is therefore vague, baseless and liable to be rejected.

 

Question No. 43

 

I put it to you that you have deposed falsely. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is categorically denied.

 

 

The Complainants have deposed truthfully and honestly on the basis of their personal knowledge and documentary evidence.

No false statement has been made intentionally or otherwise.

 

The documentary records maintained by the Opposite Parties themselves substantially corroborate the evidence of the Complainants.

 

Question No. 44

 

I put to you that you have filed the instant case only to harass the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is false and denied.

 

The present Complaint has not been filed to harass anybody.

 

The Complaint became necessary only because despite repeated requests, repeated correspondence, service of legal notice and complete payment of the consideration amount, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the apartment and failed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance.

 

The Complainants had no option except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission for protection of their legal rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Question No. 45

 

I put to you that you are not entitled to get the reliefs sought by you against the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is denied.

 

The Complainants respectfully submit that they have fully complied with all their contractual obligations and have paid the agreed sale consideration together with all additional charges demanded by the Opposite Parties.

 

The Opposite Parties alone have committed breach of contract by failing to deliver possession and execute the Deed of Conveyance within the agreed period.

Accordingly, the Complainants are legally entitled to every relief claimed in the Complaint.

 

Question No. 46

 

I put it to you that you are not entitled to get any compensation from the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is denied.

 

The Complainants have suffered substantial financial loss, mental agony, inconvenience and continuous harassment for reasons solely attributable to the Opposite Parties.

 

Despite payment of almost the entire consideration amount, the Complainants have been deprived of possession of their residential apartment for a prolonged period and have also been compelled to bear financial liabilities, including housing loan obligations, without receiving the benefit of the property.

 

The Opposite Parties have therefore rendered deficient service and indulged in unfair trade practice, making them liable to compensate the Complainants.

 

Question No. 47

 

I put to you that you are not entitled to get any cost from the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is denied.

 

The Complainants have been compelled to institute the present proceedings only because of the persistent default and inaction of the Opposite Parties.

 

The Complainants have incurred substantial expenses towards legal consultation, issuance of legal notices, preparation of pleadings, court proceedings and other incidental expenses.

 

The Opposite Parties are therefore liable to reimburse the litigation costs incurred by the Complainants.

 

Question No. 48

 

I put to you that the Complaint is not maintainable as such you are not a consumer of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. What do you say?

 

Answer:

The suggestion is wholly false, contrary to the admitted documents and is emphatically denied.

 

The Complainants are purchasers of the residential apartment for their personal residential use. They hired the services of Opposite Party No.3 as the Developer/Promoter by paying valuable consideration under the Agreement for Sale. Opposite Party No.4 acted throughout as the authorised signatory and representative of Opposite Party No.3 in relation to the transaction.

 

The Agreement for Sale, Allotment Letter, Customer Ledger, payment receipts, correspondence exchanged between the parties, demand letters and legal notices unequivocally establish the relationship of consumer and service provider.

 

The services undertaken by the Opposite Parties include construction of the apartment, delivery of possession, execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance and fulfilment of all contractual obligations. The admitted failure to perform these obligations constitutes "deficiency in service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Accordingly, the present Complaint is fully maintainable in law as well as on facts, and the Complainants are clearly entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission. The objection raised by the Opposite Parties is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.

 

3.   That save and except what has been specifically stated hereinabove, all other suggestions, implications or inferences contrary to the records and documents are denied.

 

4.   That the above replies are true and correct to our knowledge, based upon records maintained by us and legal advice received, and are made without prejudice to our rights and contentions in the Consumer Complaint.

 

 

 

 

 

DEPONENTS

 

 

 

Verification

 

We, the above named Deponents, do hereby verify that the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 hereinabove and the replies furnished to Question Nos. 1 to 48 are true to our knowledge, derived from records maintained by us and believed to be true upon legal advice received. Nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

 

Verified at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, on this ___ day of __________, 2026.

 

 

 

 

DEPONENTS

Identified by me,

 

Advocate