1. The Ops being developers floated a housing project named as “Neel Deganta” in Barasat area and the complainants having the need for a residential accommodation collected the brochure of 'Neel Deganta' from the developers' office and selected a 4^th floor flat in Block 3 having an area on 820 sq. ft. valued at  Rs. 10,49,600/-. The said flat was allotted under a letter dated 12.08.2010 at their request and in terms of the allotment letter they paid Rs. 4,69,840/-  in addition to service tax of 12,910/-.The project was due to be completed within 48 months from the date of allotment. But the developers did not take up the construction work during the period up to 27.06.2018 for which the complainants sent a letter on 28.06.2018 to know about the probable date for delivery of possession. In reply to that letter the Ops intimated under letter dated 05.07.2018 that the project would be completed by 2020. On being dissatisfied with OP's letter and on seeing no traces of construction at the proposed site the complainants filed this case on 12.04.2021 for  refund of Rs. (4,69,840+ S.T. of 12910=) 4,82,750/- with interest, compensation of Rs. 300,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-
2. The OPs have contested the case by filing written version and praying for dismissal of the case. But nowhere in the W/V it has been denied that the payment of Rs. 4,82,750/- was made by the complainants for the aforesaid flat.
3. During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate of the complainants has contended with the concurrence of the Ld. Advocate of the OPs that Rs. 4,82,750/- was paid for the flat and that no part of the same has, so far, been refunded. The Ld. Advocate of the complainants has not challenged the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the OPs that Rs. 12,910/- which was paid on account of Service Tax is not at all recoverable or refundable. Therefore, the question for causing refund of the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 12,910/- does not arise at all. The Ld. Advocate for the OPs has conceded to the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the complainants that the complainants is entitled to get back Rs. 4,69,840/- from the opposite parties. Thus it is found that the OP should be put under order for returning the same.
4. As per allotment letter (vide clause 12), within a period of 48 months from the date of allotment (i.e. 12.08.2010) possession was scheduled to be handed over. That means, the complainants were supposed to get the flat by 12.08.2014. Again, clause 16 of the allotment letter provides that in case of delay in causing delivery of possession and if the allottee wishes to withdraw the application - in that event the amount deposited would be refunded with simple interest as applicable to savings bank account of any nationalized bank. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the OPs has made reference to the said clause in support of his submission that the paid amount would carry interest at banks' rate. The Ld. Advocate on the other side has opposed such contention stating that the complainant had to back out under compulsion arising out of the gross negligence and /or wilful abstention on the part of the OP.  
5. Facts remains that after gap of more than 10 years the complainants had to seek for refund due to non-performance of their part of the agreement by the OP. He has wanted to say that Bankers' interest rate would have been applicable had the developer sincerely taken up or proceed with the construction work. True it is that the complainants filed this case only when they became sure from the conduct of the developers that the said project would never see the light of the day and when they found no other option open to them. Under compelling situation they had to take such a recessive stance. It is now known to all that 'Neel Deganta' project was nipped in the bud for reasons best known to the developers.  Those who applied for flats in 'Neel Deganta' have fallen prey to dire disappointment for no fault on their part. They are possibly running from pillars to posts for getting refund. Their response to the developers' advertisement about 'Neel Deganta' housing project had subsequently turned out to be a curse for them and a boon for the Ops..
6.  The view taken by the Honourable NCDRC in the case reported as 2022(1) CPR 572 (NC) is that the complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of their apartment and the complainants are entitled to refund of the principal amount with reasonable interest. The said observation is quite applicable here in this case in as much as the facts of this case are similar. There is also another view- angle from which the question may be looked into. The developers who omitted to perform their part of the agreement should not be allowed to derive benefit from any part thereof. It may, therefore, be opined that the OP who have utilized their money for a decade and neglected to return the same leading them to Commission for reliefs should pay back the principal with interest at reasonable rate.  Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Advocate for awarding interest on the paid amount at bank- rate can not be upheld. The theory of reasonable interest as propounded by the Honourable NCDRC would apply. The interest rate may be worked out at 10% per annum. So, there will be a direction for refund Rs. 469840/- with interest @ 10% p.a. to the complainants.
7. The complainants who had to put up with mental pain and agony for a decade for the unlawful trade practice on the part of the developers would also get compensation. Keeping in view the nature of Ops' deficiency in rendering service and the amount of petitioners agony and harassment the amount of compensation may be calculated at Rs. 70,000/-. On account of litigation cost they may be permitted to get a sum of Rs. 20,000/-.

The case is thus disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The opposite parties will pay to the complainants Rs. 4,69,840/- with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 02.05.2014 (i.e. the date of last payment) till realization within 45 days hence failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12% p.a.
2. The OPs will also pay him Rs. 70,000/- as compensation + Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost totaling Rs. 90,000/- within a period of 45 days hence failing which the amount will accrue interest @ 12% p.a.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT