Judgment : Dt.8.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Anindita Dey @ Banerjee daughter of Anil Dey 9 No. Bidhan Pally, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032 against Avinya Social Welfare Trust represented by Sri Subrata Mondal having its registered office at 61, Regent Place, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 040, OP No.1 and Sri Subrata Mondal, Manager of Avinya Social Welfare Trust, 23/13, Durga Prasanna Paramhansha Road (341, DPP Road). Third floor, Naktala, near Sree Guru Sangha, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the O.P. to refund security deposit amount of Rs.42,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a school teacher and she does her service as Jharkhali Herobhanga Vidyasagar Vidyamandir about 110 kms from the residence. Complainant was unable to take care of her father in day-time and husband of the Complainant was in service at New Delhi. Parents of Complainant were also dependent upon her. In the month of September, 2016, Complainant decided to keep her father in an old age home. Complainant visited the old age home and deposited Rs.42,000/- as security deposit. Rs.300/- was to be given per day for fooding and lodging or Rs.7,000/- per month. Complainant agreed to pay Rs.300/- per day. Complainant had paid Rs.42,000/-. However, Complainant’s father faced certain difficulties and left the accommodation in the month of November, 2016. On 30.11.2016 OP promised and undertook to refund Rs.42,000/- and extra receivable amount of Rs.11,000/-. Complainant made several requests but OPs did not refund the money. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OPs did not appear to contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against them.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief.

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

            It appears from the copy of Account Statement that Rs.42,000/- was paid by the Complainant to the OP. Further, it appears that on 27.9.2016, Rs.42,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the Complainant for paying the OP. Since the allegations remained unrebutted and unchallenged, Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.42,000/-. Further Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and another Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-. In this regard, it is clear that Complainant has not made a ground as to how she is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if refund or Rs.42,000/- is allowed, the object of justice would be served.

Hence,

ordered

             CC/408/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OPs re directed to refund Rs.42,000/- to the Complainant within 3 months of this order, in default, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a.