Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/15/126

Santosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S K.K. Singh & Associates Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Bandopadhyay

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-15-10-2015

Date of final hearing-06-02-2023

 Date of Order-14-02-2023

Case No. 126/2015

Santosh Kumar S/o Sri Sidheshwar Sharma

R/o- Village- Parsobigha, P.O.- Barbigha, District- Shekhpura Bihar

At- Present R/o Qr.No. T1/2, Sector-1/B, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City,

District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. K.K. Singh & Associates Pvt. Ltd.
2. The Managing Director

K.K. Singh & Associates Pvt. Ltd.

       Both R/o- Rathore Manson, Sadar Bazar, Chas,

      P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

And

      137, Housing Colony, Krishna Enclave, Rajendra Nagar,

      Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Order-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct O.Ps. to handover fully finished flat /house/bungalow to him as per agreement or to pay Rs. 14,00,000/- the amount already paid, Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment along with compound interest @24% p.a. as directed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court from 01-09-2008 till date of payment.
2. Complainant’s case in short is that he was in need of his own house hence he approached O.Ps. who assured for allotment of 10 decimal land with complete construction of the house there on along with approved plan on Rs. 10,00,000/- accordingly first installment of Rs. 70,000/- was paid on 01-09-2008, thereafter on different dates payment was made. On 21-12-2010 after payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- on different dates as mentioned above O.Ps. executed sale deed for 10 decimal land, there after complainant visited the site and found that there is no construction of the house, however he remitted remaining Rs. 6,00,000/- on 17-04-2012 who was assured by the O.Ps. regarding completion of the house within further six months. Further case is that during Durga Puja of 2010 complainant found that only the construction upto level of  the plinth has been done then he contacted the O.Ps. who further demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- to complete the construction work, accordingly Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid on 21-12-2012 but as per promise construction was not completed, rather money receipts have been issued in different names such as K.K. Building coordinator and  K.K. Singh’s Vision and on query O.Ps. assured not to worry. In the month of October 2013 O.Ps. told that within a week time fully finished constructed house will be handed over to the complainant, accordingly completion certificate was issued on demand on 03-10-2013 but on inspection it was found that construction up-to the linter level has been done only by the O.Ps. which was not complete, then on contact with O.Ps. they threatened for dire consequence. Complainant lodged Chas P.S. Case No. 346/2012 against director of the O.Ps. in which K.K. Singh filed ABA No. 531/2014 in which he agreed to pay Rs. 14,00,000/- with 15% Compound interest from 21-12-2010 however he did not obeyed it rather later on he was arrested by the police and granted bail but died on 09-07-2015. Cause of action of the case arose on the day when O.Ps. failed to hand over complete constructed house.
3. O.Ps. appeared and have filed W.S. mentioning there in that case is time barred. Further reply is that this case has been filed against wrong person which is fit to be dismissed. Further reply is that M/s K.K. Singh and Associates Pvt. Ltd. is the registered company which is having no dealing in the case rather it is apparent from money receipts that it have been issued by K.K. Building Coordinator or K.K. Singh’s Vision with which these O.Ps. having no concern. Further it is replied that cause of action of the case arose on 01-09-2008 in this way case is hopelessly time barred.
4. In light of pleadings of the parties  following points for consideration are being framed;

• whether complaint is time barred?
• Whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed?

5. There is no dispute regarding payment of total Rs. 14,00,000/- on different dates from 01-09-2008 to 21-12-2012. The fact related to transfer of the 10 decimal land related to Khata No. 566 Plot No. 1637 of Mouza Chas through registered sale deed no. 14965/13656 dated 21-12-2010 is also not in dispute. Only dispute is in respect to completion of the construction of the house or refund of the money already paid. Therefore we have to decide the matter point wise in respect to the facts which are in dispute.
6. Point No.A :- This point is related to limitation in filing the case. On this aspect it is admitted fact that for the first time Rs. 70,000/- was paid on 01.09.2008 however, on 03.10.2013 completion certificate of the house was issued. It appears that after receipt of the completion certificate complainant visited the site and found that construction is not complete rather it is up-to to the linter level, thereafter, he approached the O.Ps. who threatened for dire consequence, hence complainant lodged  Chas P.S. Case No. 346/2013 on 02.11.2013 in respect to criminal offence related to same occurence.  In this way it is very much clear that cause of action of the case arose on 01.09.2008   and continued thereafter till 03.10.2013 on which date completion certificate was issued and till 02.11.2013 on which date FIR has been registered in respect to the criminal act arising out of same facts. This case has been filed on 15.10.2015 which is within two years from 02.11.2013. Taking it with another angle it is apparent that this case was registered on 15.10.2015 and vide order dt. 28.10.2015 it has been admitted for hearing therefore on admission of the case it will be treated that it is well within prescribed period of limitation. In this way it is very much clear that this case is well within prescribed period of limitation and it is within time. Accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.
7. Point No. B:- Considering the facts which are not under dispute we have only taken up the matter for discussion which is under dispute in this case. It has been disputed that all the money receipts have been issued either by K.K. Building coordinator or K.K. Singh’s Vision with whom O.Ps. are having no concerned rather O.Ps. are K.K. Singh & Associates Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director. On this aspect we would like to mention here that K.K. Singh & Associates Pvt. Ltd. is registered company and its Managing Director is Krishna Kumar Singh, whole time Directors are  Saroj Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh and Nirmala Singh. Its registered address is Rathor Mansion, Chas, Bokaro, Dhanbad, P.S. Chas, Sadar Bazar, P.S.-Chas. Address of all the directors etc. is 137, Rajendra Nagar, Chas, District Bokaro, Chas- 827013, Jharkhand, India as it is apparent from the photo copy of the information furnished about the company. In this way it is apparent that the names of firms/ company printed on money receipts are related to the O.Ps. and non else. On perusal of the money receipts it is very much clear and admitted by the O.Ps. during his evidence that all receipts have been issued by his father Sri K.K. Singh. In this way there is sufficient evidence on record that O.Ps. have received total Rs. 14,00,000/- from the complainant on different dates on the pretext to provide 10 decimal land with fully constructed house. The land concerned has already been transferred by the O.Ps. in the name of the complainant through registered sale deed dt. 21.12.2010 for Rs. 3,25,000/- as it has been accepted by the complainant during his evidence and at para 23 of his deposition he has admitted the fact that in transfer of the land total Rs. 3,40,000/- has been paid amongst which Rs. 15,000/- was registration fee.
8. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant is enjoying the landed property of Rs. 3,40,000/- from the amount already paid to the O.Ps. Only he has not received the fully constructed house for which he has paid Rs. 10,60,000/- on different dates. However, it is admitted case of the complainant that O.Ps. have made construction to the linter level in which they have already invested some money. Therefore, in light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get back remaining Rs. 10,60,000/- only and interest related to that very amount shall be adjusted towards already constructed portion of the house. We think that this will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this point is decided partly in favour of the complainant.
9. In light of above discussion we are of the opinion that prayer of the complainant is liable to be partly allowed in following manner, accordingly it is ordered that :-

O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 10,60,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from receipt/production of the copy of this order failing which they shall pay interest on that very amount @ 10% per annum from 15.10.2015 (i.e. the date on which case was filed). Further these O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for various type of harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 8000/- as litigation cost within above mentioned period.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

(B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

                                                                            

                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•