Judgment : Dt.20.2.2017
This is a complaint made by (1) Sudeb Saha, son of Late Joydev Saha and (2) Mrs. Mala Saha, wife of Sri Sudeb Saha, both are residing at 1, Chetla Hat Road, P.S.-Alipore, Kolkata-700 027 against Ashim Roy Chowdhury, son of Sri Amulya Roy Chowdhury, residing at 51, Purba Putiary, Dakshin Para, P.S.- Regent Park, Kolkata-700 093, praying for direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony, negligence, deficiency of service, unfair trade practice.
Facts in brief are that the Complainant has entered into agreement with the OP, developer and proprietor of authentic roofing concern on 14.3.2008 for purchase of a flat at premises No.115, Ustad Amir Ali Khan Sarani, Kolkata-700 042, P.O. & P.S.-Thakurpukur, under ward No.122 as Flat No.1/B, on the 1st floor, South East side measuring more or less of area of 835 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, Complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the OP. However, the OP neither carried on construction nor did refund advance of Rs.5,00,000/-.
In the year 2011, in the month of April, after several requests OP paid seven cheques of different dates for refunding Rs.5,00,000/-. The cheques were handed over to Complainant No.1 by the OP. But on the dates given on the cheques the OP requested the Complainant for not depositing the cheques. Complainant being simple minded believed he words of the OP and did not deposit the cheques. After expiry of dates of the said cheques Complainant No.1 again approached and requested OP to pay back their advance money. In June, 2011, after several requests and pursuance the OP paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and issued some cheques in favour of the Complainant No.1. along with a self declaration with the detail of cheques that he would pay Rs.4,50,000/- and only one cheque was encashed which was amounting to Rs.50,000/- and other cheques were not encashed. The OP had promised that he would pay Rs.4,00,000/- as the Complainant requested OP to refund Rs.4,00,000/-. But, he paid no heed to that. Thereafter, Complainant issued a notice through Advocate, but of no use. So, Complainant suffered huge monetary loss. As such, Complainant filed this case.
On the basis of above facts, complaint was admitted and notices were issued. But, OP did not appear and, so, the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons:
Complainant 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 in the complaint petition.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from OP. Further, it appears that OP agreed to refund Rs.5,00,000/-. Xerox copy of the receipt showing payment, Complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- on different dates. Further, it appears that OP on several dates handed over cheques to Complainant as for refunding the amount. But, only Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded. Since allegations remain unrebutted and unchallenged, we are of the view if order of refund of Rs.4,50,000/- is allowed justice would be served.
Hence,
ordered
CC/455/2016 is allowed ex-parte. OP is directed to pay refund of Rs.4,50,000/- to the Complainant within four months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 12%p.a.
