BEFORE THE STATE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

COMPLAINT PETITION NFO.173 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:-

MR. S.P. SINGH & ANR. …..Complainant

Versus

M/s KAILASH NATH HOMES

PVT LTD & ORS. …..Opp. Parties

REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE

COMPLAINANT TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE
OPPOSITE PARTIES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. I, S.P. Singh, S/o Shri M.P. Singh, aged about 56

years, R/o D-II/359, Vinay Marg, Chanakyapuri, New

Delhi- 110021 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

under:

2. That I am the Complainant No. 1 in the aforesaid

matter and am conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case and as such competent to

swear this affidavit on my behalf and on behalf of

Complainant No. 2.

3. It is humbly submitted that Para I of the reply is a

standard paragraph and hence warrant no reply.

(I) REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That the contents of Para II (1) are wrong and denied
to the extent that is within the knowledge of the
Complainant. The Complainant in the complaint has
specifically brought out instances and established the
deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties.
The contents of the Complaint are reiterated and
should be read in reply to the contents of the reply
filed by the Opposite Parties.
2. The contents of Para II (2) are wrong and denied. It is
denied that the complainant did not have pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. It is submitted
that total amount claimed by the complainant is Rs.
1,02,14,000/- (refund of Rs. 65,50,000/- with
compound interest @18% quarterly i.e., Rs.
27,64,000/- approx., along with damages for Rs.
8,00,000/- and cost of litigation Rs. 1,00,000/-) which
is above Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and is therefore
maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission.
3. That the contents of Para II (3) are wrong and denied.
The complainant states that the complainants are law
abiding citizens of India falling with the ambit of
Section 2(1)(b)(1) of the consumer protection act
1986 and are entitled to invoke the original
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission. The
complainants fall within the definition of “consumer”
as envisaged under the consumer protection act,
1986. And that the registered office of the Opposite
Party falls within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Commission and hence amenable to the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Commission.
4. That the contents of para II (4) and Para II (5) are
wrong and denied. It is submitted that there is no bar
in law that a person having a government residence
can buy another property. The opposite parties are
making false and frivolous contentions to escape
liability.
5. That the contents of para II (6) is wrong and denied.
It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 and 3 are the
directors of the office of the opposite party no. 1. All
the parties had entered into the agreement to sell and
therefore are liable to the present suit.
6. That the contentions taken in the reply in para II (7)
are wrong and denied unless specifically admitted
herein.
7. That the contents of para II (8) and para II (9) are
wrong and denied. It is submitted that the opposite
party has fraudulently obtained the signatures on the
‘Agreement to sell’ and tried to sell the property at a
much higher price than the actual market price. It is
further submitted that the collaboration agreement
and the agreement to sell was invalid and illegal as
the owners of the property were not able to transfer
the property to the opposite parties making the
‘agreement to sell’ in itself illegal.
8. That the contents of para II (10) are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the refund was to be
granted to the complainants after determination of
sale of the property which took place on 20.02.2017
and the complaint was filed in 2018. Thus the
allegations are not barred by the limitation.
9. That the contents of para II (11) are denied as the
material of facts are not misrepresented. As
mentioned in paragraph no. 7 of the complaint that
the collaboration agreement was not shown to the
complainants at the time of making the ‘Agreement to
sell.’ That the contents of (ii) are false and denied and
the opposite party upon the sale of the property made
a huge amount of profit. That the contentions under
(iii) & (iv) are invalid and denied as the opposite party
requested for the undue amount within a month and
the floor mentioned in the agreement to sell had been
mentioned as ground floor which was novated to the
second floor by the opposite parties without the
consents of the complainant.
10. That the contents of para II (12) and (13) are
wrong and denied. As the complainants came to the
agreement due to the fraud representation by the
opposite parties and were subsequently occurred
losses in regards to interest on the money, litigation
charges and mental agony.
11. That the contents of para II (14) are wrong and
denied………
12. That the contents of para II (15) and (16) are
wrong and denied. It is submitted that the
complainant paid the entire due amount on time and
that the opposite parties could not have suffered a
loss as the property was sold at a much higher price
than the actual price of that property.
13. That the contents of para II (17) are a matter of

record and hence warrant no reply.

II. REPLY TO PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

1. That the contents of Para III (1), (2) & (3) are a

matter of record and hence warrant no reply.

2. --------------

3.

IV.

1. That the contents of para IV (i) are wrong and denied

as the owners were not capable of transferring
ownership of the property in the name of the opposite
parties. Thus the ‘agreement to sell’ is invalid, bogus
and illegal and the consideration received was
fraudulently obtained. That the facts were willingly
suppressed from the complainants while entering into
the agreement who invested their money in the
property where the opposite parties had no legal
authority to transfer it.
2. That contents of para IV (ii) are wrong and denied as
it was the act of deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice because in general course it is practically
impossible to complete the construction within one
month which lead to the fact that opposite parties
were playing fraud against answering opposite party
and tried to sell the property at a higher amount than
the market price. That the answering opposite party
terminated the agreement.
3. That the contents of para IV (iii) are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the ‘Agreement to sell’ as
 dated on 19.05.2015 was done for the entire ground
floor and 1/4th share in the entire stilt area with one
car park, along with proportionate undivided,
indivisible and impartible ownership rights along with
all rights in common entrances, passages, staircase
and other common facilities and amenities to be
provided where it was shown that O.P no. 1 had
represented that he had the ownership of the
property.
4. The contents of para (iv) are wrong and denied. It is
submitted that the refund was to be granted to the
complainants after determination of sale of the
property which took place on 20.02.2017 and the
complaint was filed in 2018. Thus there is no ground
against which the Complainants shall be stopped from
the filing of the complaint.
5. The contents of para (v) are wrong and denied. It is
submitted that …………………

PARA-WISE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT

V. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the

answering opposite party now seeks to deal with the
complaint para-wise.
1. That the contents of paragraph no. 1 are denied
and disputed. That the complainants are using
the property for commercial use is denied by the
answering opposite party.
2. The contents of paragraph no. 2 are a matter of
record and need no reply.
3. That the contents of paragraph no. 3 are wrong
and denied. It is submitted that that total
amount claimed by the complainant is Rs.
 1,02,14,000/- (refund of Rs. 65,50,000/- with
compound interest @18% quarterly i.e., Rs.
27,64,000/- approx., along with damages for Rs.
8,00,000/- and cost of litigation Rs. 1,00,000/-)
which is above Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and therefore
above the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Commission.
4. That the contents of paragraph no. 4 are denied
and wrong. It is submitted that the O.P no. 1 is a
registered company under companies act and
acts as a real-estate company. Hence is a
service provider in terms of Section 2(1) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. The contents of paragraph no. 5 are disputed
and denied. It is submitted that “when
compensation claimed in the form of interest by
the complainants is added to the principal
amount paid by them, the aggregates come to
more than Rupees one crore. Therefore, it
would difficult for us to accept the contention
that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction
to entertain these complaints and the
complainants should be relegated to the
concerned State Commission.” Reliance is placed
on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Munish Aggarwal & Anr. vs Unitech Reliable
Projects Pvt. ... on 27 July 2016
6. That the contents of paragraph No. 6 are wrong
and denied. It is denied that the complainants
agreed to the agreement for the second floor as
‘agreement to sell’ with O.P. no. 1 was done for
 the entire ground floor and 1/4th share in the
entire stilt area with one car park, along with
proportionate undivided, indivisible and
impartiable ownership rights along with all rights
in common entrances, passages, staircase and
other common facilities were to be provided.
7. That the contents of para no. 7 are disputed and
denied as the collaboration agreement is illegal
as the owners were not capable of transferring
ownership of the property in the name of
opposite parties and the consideration received
as a consequence of such an illegal agreement
was therefore fraudulently obtained and the
owners acquired freehold rights over the
property and they did not execute any sale deed
in favor of the opposite parties which made the
agreement to sell void ab initio.
8. That the contents of para no. 8 and para no. 9
are a matter of record and warrant no reply.
9. The contents of the para no. 10 and para
number 11 are dispute and wrong. It is
submitted that the complainant had paid all the
dues in time and was not aware of the fraudulent
conduct of the opposite party. It is further
submitted that the agreement to sell was for the
ground floor and 1/4th of the share in the entire
stilt area with one car park, along with
proportionate undivided, indivisible and
impartiable ownership rights along with all rights
in common entrances, passages, staircase and
other common facilities were to be provided.
10. The contents of the para no. 12 are denied
and disputed. It is submitted that the agreement
to sell was entered when the property was on
the lease. It is further submitted that the above
fact was withheld from the complainants.
11. The contents of the paras 13, 14, 15 & 16
are disputed and denied. It is submitted that the
owners were not capable of transferring
ownership of the property in the name of the
opposite parties. Thus the ‘agreement to sell’ is
invalid, bogus and illegal and the consideration
received was fraudulently obtained. That the
facts were willingly suppressed from the
complainants while entering into the agreement
who invested their money in the property where
the opposite parties had no legal authority to
transfer it. Thus both the collaboration
agreement and the agreement to sell was in
itself void ab initio.
12. ……….
13. The contents of para 18, 19 & 20 are wrong
and denied. It is submitted that the complainant
has provided with proofs of their arguments in
the annexure and the opposite parties are just
providing explanations on no written proof.
14. The contents of para 21 are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the floor mentioned
in the agreement to sell had been mentioned as
ground floor which was novated to the second
floor by the opposite parties without the
consents of the complainant.
15. …………
16. The contents of para 23 are matters of
record and need no reply.
17. The contents of para 24 and 25 are wrong
and denied. It is submitted that the complainant
has provided proof by producing a document
under Annexure C-5. Form such document it is
submitted that it is impossible to complete the
said structure within a month of completion of
the foundation, thus showing the raising of
bogus bills by the Opposite parties.
18. The contents of para 26 are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the opposite party
was in fact not an actual owner of the property
and thus do not have any interest whatsoever
over that property.
19. The contents of the paras 27 & 28 are
wrong and denied. It is submitted that the
complainant has provided conclusive proofs of
the allegations showing the rate chart of the
neighboring properties at that time whereas the
opposite parties are basing their arguments
without any documentary proofs. Thus showing
their bogus nature.
20. ………….
21. The contents of para 30 do not need any
reply.
22. ………..
23. The contents of para 32 are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that at the time of the
agreement to sale the opposite party did not
 have any ownership rights over the said property
thus making the agreement to sell illegal. It is
further submitted that at the time of the sale to
3rd party the opposite party was only a
confirming party and hence made a healthy
profit out of it. The opposite party was never the
actual owner of the same.
24. The contents of para 33 are wrong and
denied. It was already submitted that the
complainant paid all the dues and the opposite
parties couldn’t have suffered from any loss as
the property was not ready to be sold.
25. The contents of para 34 & 35 are wrong
and denied. It is submitted that the opposite
parties replied that they have suffered losses
due to the actions/omissions of the
Complainants and on the same breath they state
that they received the remuneration fees. It is
submitted that both the replies are contrary in
nature and it clearly evidences that the present
reply is a mere counterblast to the legal and
valid dues of the Complainant.
26. The contents of para 36, 37 & 38 are wrong
and denied. It is submitted that the
complainants are entitled to refund along with
the 18% quarterly compound interest. It is
further submitted that the opposite parties are
holding the complainants’ money and had done
unfair trade practices towards the complainants.
27. The contents of para 39 & 40 are denied
and disputed. It is submitted that the
 complainants are entitled to compensation and
interest for their fraudulent acts and use of
unfair trade practices. It is further submitted
that the amount mentioned for the compensation
and claim for damages is accurate.
28. The contents of para 41 are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the complainants
had attached documents regarding the proof of
deficiency of service and use of unfair trade
practices by the opposite parties.
29. The contents of para 42 are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the complainants
have already proved in para no. V (3) that the
claim is above one crore rupees.
30. The contents of para 43 are wrong and
denied. It is submitted that the prayer clause of
the complainant is right because the opposite
parties are liable to pay for damages and
compensation regarding their fraudulent acts
and use of unfair trade practices.
31. That in view of the aforesaid submissions
the Complainant humbly submits that the prayer
made by the Opposite Parties is liable to be
rejected.

32. That in view of the aforesaid submissions

the Complainant humbly submits that the prayer
made by the Opposite Parties is liable to be
rejected.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the__ day of March,

2018. I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that

the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct, no

part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT

COMPLAINANT
THROUGH COUNSEL
FILED BY:

[PAWANSHREE AGRAWAL]
Advocate for the Complainant (s)
B-9, Sagar Apartments
PLACE : NEW DELHI 6, Tilak Marg
DATED: /03/2018 New Delhi 110 001