This is a complaint made by Tarapada Mridha son of Late Jamini Ranjan Mridha of Natun Pally, Middle Road, P.S. Sonarpur, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-150 against Arup Mukherjee son of Late Anupam Mukherjee of Bidhan Pally, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032 praying for refund of Rs.17,33,526/- as per the list furnished in the fourth page of the complaint.

Facts, in brief, are that an agreement for sale was executed between Arup Mukherjee, OP and Tarapada Mridha, Complainant on 27/2/2013 for selling of a flat measuring about more or less 750 Sq. ft. on the back side of first floor at K. M. C. premises No.141/2, Prince Golam Hossain Shah Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700032 an agreement  was done in presence Arpan Dey, Broker and Avik Mukherjee, Broker. Complainant paid Rs.8,00,000/- on 27/2/2013 to Arup Mukherjee as advance out of this amount Rs.6,00,000/- was given in Axis Bank, Golpark Branch after withdrawing cash from Fixed Deposit as per terms and conditions of the agreement Promoter was handed over the flat to Complainant within two years from 27/2/2013 but after one time advance of Rs.9,00,000/-  Promoter started to avoid to attend phone calls. Complainant took help of Brokers and on different dates requested OP to hand over the flat. After March, 2014 Brokers also did not co-operate.  Being helpless Complainant sent letters on which Complainant was invited to contact and to meet at Bus Stand, Jadavpur. But OP did not appear. Thereafter, Complainant went to Consumer Affairs Department where he was advised to lodge a case.

On the basis of above facts complaint was admitted but despite service of notice OP did not appear and so the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

On perusal of the complaint petition it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.17,33,526. Complainant has filed two receipts dt.27/2/2013 and 9/3/2013 showing the payment of Rs.9,00,000/- . The copy of the receipt dt.27/2/2013 reveals that a cheque bearing No.312602 was issued and against Rs.8,00,000/- is mentioned. Xerox copy of cheques have not been filed.

Further, it appears from this receipt that Rs.90,000/- - + Rs.6,00,000/- , Rs.1,00,000/- cash on 13/2/3 written on this. So this receipt does not reflect any meaning. Further, on playing meaning it can be considered that Complainant paid Rs.8,00,000/- by cheque No.312602.

Again by receipt dt.9/2/2013 it appears that by the same cheque No.312602  Rs.1.00,000/- was paid. Further, on perusal of the complaint it appears that the mode of payment has been mentioned in paragraph 2 which is vague and ambiguous. As such the prayer made in the complaint for refund of Rs.9,00,000/- cannot be allowed.

However, Complainant has prayed refund of Rs.2.5 lakhs which he paid to the brokers. In our view, this money cannot be refunded. Similarly, the other prayer for refund of money does not appear in accordance with law.

In the circumstances, Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

CC/163/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.