District 24 PARGANAS
(South)
In the
Court of the Ld. Consumer District Redressal Forum at Alipore.
Ref: C.C.
No. 24/2015
ASHIS SEN
……….Plaintiff
- Versus -
ILA DAS AND ANOTHER
………Opp. Parties
AFFIDAVIT
IN CHIEF OF EVIDENCE
I, ASHIS
SEN, son of Late Mohitosh Sen, aged about 59 years, by faith Hindu, by
occupation Business, being the sole proprietor of M/s. Ashis Sen (Powercab) of
2/87, Sree Colony, P.S.Jadavpur now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700092, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-
1.
That I am the petitioner of this instant case.
2.
That initially I filed
this instant case against the O.P. namely Sushil Kumar Das who is the original
owner of the land of premises No. 54/106, Raipur Road, postal address 3/95,
Sanghati Colony, P.S. Netaji Nagar, Kolkata -700 047.
3.
That during the pendency of the instant case, the original
O.P. namely Sushil Kumar Das died intestate leaving behind his wife lla Das and
one daughter Debshila Das as his legal heirs and successors of his estate.
4.
That after the demise of original O.P. Sushil Kumar Das, I
filed an application for substitution the name of the legal heirs of original
O.P. Sushil Kumar Das (Since deceased), in place of Original O.P.
5.
That after both side hearing, the Ld. Court was pleased to
allow the said substitution application and directed me to file the
substituted/amended plaint.
6.
That as per direction I filed the substituted/amended plaint.
7.
That the said original O.P. was the promoter of the land of
premises No.54/106, Raipur Road, postal address 3/95, Sanghati Colony, P.S.
Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047.
8.
That on 06.10.2012 I had entered into an agreement for sale
with the O.P./Developer, namely Sushil Kumar Das (since deceased), for
purchasing a flat measuring more or less 873 Sq.ft. including 20% super built
up area situated on the Second Floor South East facing of Premises No.54/106,
Raipur Road, postal address 3/95, Sanghati Colony, P.S. Netaji Nagar,
Kolkata-700047 at or for the total consideration of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lakh fifty thousand) only.
9.
That I have already paid an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees
Tuelve lakhs) only by partly cheque and partly by cash to the original
O.P./Developer Sushil Kumar Das (since deceased) out of the total consideration
of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh Fifty thousand) only Sushil Kumar Das
(since deceased) and the original O.P./Developer Sushil Kumar Das (since
deceased duly acknowledged the said payments by issuing the receipts on the
back page of the stamp paper.
10. That as per
discussion with the original O.P./Developer and taking consent of the original
O.P./Developer 1 purchased the high quality sanitary plumbing & electrical
materials amounting to Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy-five thousand) only for
fitting into the flat as above and the said materials duly handed over to the
original O.P./Developer for installation into the flat.
11. That the original O.P./Developer assured me to
receive an amount of Ra. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand) only
after adjustment of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-five thousand) only for
sanitary, plumbing & Electrical materials expenses from the balance
consideration from me as full and final payment against the said flat.
12. That the original
O.P./Developer assured me to execute the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the
said flat on April 2013 and also undertake to complete the flat in habitable
condition.
13. That till the date
of the original O.P./Developer did not take any step for Begeval registering
the flat in my favour.
14. That on- 30.04.2013
the original O.P./Developer intend to hand over the said Flat in unfinished
condition.
15. That believing the assurance of the original
O.P./Developer are true and on good faith I have received the Flat in
unfinished ergeval condition from the original O.P./Developer on 30.04.2013,
16. That
after receiving the possession of the said flat I am facing difficulties for
proper using and utilising the said flat and immediately inform the same to the
original O.P./Developer over telepnone namely Sushil Kumar Das and requested
the O.P./Developer namely Sushil Kumar Das (since deceased) for taking initiative
for complete the flat in habitable condition.
17. That
the original O.P./Developer during his life time did not take any initiative
for providing adequate service in my favour.
18. The following work are still incomplete in the
flat and in the common area of the building:
a) All the tiles fitting throughout the defective
portion of the Flat;
b) All aluminium windows fittings are defective:
c) All windows grills of your petitioner's flat are not
painted till today;
d) There are no caretaker/Dravan/Security Guard's Room;
e) There are no common toilet for the maid servants and
outsiders, daruan or for security guard;
f) The roof is partly encroached by the O.P. without
the consent of the purchaser but as per Agreement for sale, the ultimate roof
of the building is common.
g) There are insufficient water tank for 8 flats of the
said apartment;
h) The building outside painting is still pending
i) The outside plaster partly incomplete of your
petitioner's portion which is damaging day by day.
j) The roof is not water protected so
soaking water continuously damaging your petitioner's portion and as such roof
treatment is required;
k) There are no ground earthing provided as per
L.E. Rules 1958 IE Rules/IS 3043;
l) That no NOC of the said building is submitted
to your petitioner till today from the financial institute on repeated demand;
m) All rubbish materials are stacked at the
common passage of ground floor as a result of which ingress and egress is being
hampered.
n) Staircase railing handles are unfinished and
are not painted;
o) No additional pumps and motors have been
arranged for emergency;
p) Due to incomplete plaster of the outside
works of the flat one portion of the bed room wall damaged.
q) Main stop cock for inlet water line of the
flat not provided.
r) Building Completion Certificate, Structure
fitness certificate along with the building plan not submitted till date.
s) Staircase flooring is improper and finishing
work is undone and due to poor work. The staircase floorings damaged in several
places,
t) Two iron made gates in between 2nd floor and
3rd floor's common passage and also on the 3rd floor's staircase kept under
lock and key as a result of which free ingress and egress of the inhabitants
have been hampered.
19
. On repeated occasion I requested the original
O.P./Developer namely Sushil Kumar Das (since deceased) for complete the above
incomplete work, but the original O.P./Developer did not take any initiative
for complete the above incomplete work into the Flat as well as in the common
areas of premises.
20
.That the ultimate roof of the building is common but the
original O.P./Developer intentionally encroached a portion of ultimate roof and
already constructed a room on the ultimate roof of the building for to such
type of illegal acts of the original O.P./Developer I myself along with other
co-owner of the flat debarred from using the ultimate roof of the building. At
present the O.P. namely lla Das and Debshila Das forcibly occupying the portion
of roof and room for their own use and occupation.
21
.That after receiving the incomplete flat and common areas I
myself requested several times and served lawyer notices to the original
O.P./Developer in different times to complete all the pending works along with
submission of NOC from the financial institute.
22
. That inspite of receiving those letters/notice the original
O.P./Developer did not take any initiative to complete the flat and pending
works of common areas and not submitted NOC for the said property from the
financial institute till date.
23
.That inspite of receiving the notice the original
O.P./Developer also did not take any initiative for registration the flat in my
favour.
24
.That it is clear from the conduct of the original
O.P./Developer there is no possibility to settled the matter across the table
25
.That the original O.P./Developer was an influential person
and threatened me in dire consequences and abused me in very filthy languages.
26
.That the original O.P./Developer intentionally did not take
any initiative for register the flat in my favour for his illegal gain.
27
. That for such type of illegal activities of the original
O.P./Developer I sustained mental agony and incurred day to day huge financial
losses till sate.
28
. It is denied that the sanction of the building plan is not
necessary.
29
. The original O.P./Developer for his illegal gain
intentionally did not sanctioned the building plan.
30
.It is denied that the complainant approach the original
O.P./Developer for buying the flat. The original O.P./Developer approach the
Complainant and requested him to buy the flat situated on the 2nd floor of the
building.
31
. It is denied that the Complainant drafted the agreement
with an ulterior motive and intentionally showing the measurement 873 Sq.ft.
Super built up area in place of 950 sq.ft. Super built up area.
32
.It is denied that as per agreement the original
O.P./Developer handed over the possession of the flat on April 2013 complete
condition.
33
. It is also denied that after verifying each and every items
the Complainant took the possession of the flat.
34
. It is denied that Complainant made addition and alteration
in the flat.
35
.It is denied that before execution of the agreement for sale
the construction of the building being completed.
36
.It is denied that the original O.P./Developer intend to
register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant.
37
. It is denied that the balance consideration amount is owing
dues of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty thousand only).
38
. It is denied that Complainant did not handover any material
of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-five thousand) only to the original
O.P./Developer.
39
.It is fact that after adjusted of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees
Seventy-five thousand) only and statutory adjustment the balance consideration
amount was settled of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand) only and
the Complainant is ready and willing to pay the said amount of
Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand) only to the present
O.P./Developer against the flat.
40
.That it is denied that if any application made by any
company, the consumer court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.
41
It is denied that the
Complainant is a defaulter in payment of consideration for which the
complainant cannot get any relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
42
.It is denied the this court has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to
entertain the cane.
43
.It is denied the case is not maintainable.
44
. It is denied that as per law the agreement is impound.
45
. It is denied that the Complainant filed the case only for
harassing the original O.P./Developer.
46
. That the Complainant prays before your Honour to direct
Substituted opp. Parties to execute the Deed of Conveyance in respect of flat
measuring more or less 873 sq.ft. super built up area situated on the 2nd floor
South-East facing of Premises No. 54/106, Raipur Road, Postal Address 3/95,
Sanghati Colony, P.S. Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700047, in favour of the
complainant, as legal heirs of original O.P..
47
.The Complainant also prays to direct the substituted opp.
Parties to complete the flat and common areas in habitable conditions and serve
the completion certificate along with sanction building plan and NOC from the
financial institution as legal heirs of original O.P.
48
. The Complainant prays to direct the substituted opposite
parties to adjust the amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) only
along with statutory adjustment from the balance consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand) only.
49
.The complainant prays to direct the substituted opposite
parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand) only
as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as litigation
cost of as legal heirs the original opp. Party.
50
.That the statement made in the foregoing paragraphs are true
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
Identified by me,
Advocate
