For Complainant          :             Sri Krubitas Rout, Advocate.

For Op. 1                         :             None.

For Op.2                          :             Sri H.S. Mududli, Advocate & Associates.

                                                                                      -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that the Ops are in Real Estate business and had floated a plotting scheme in the name and style “Cyber City” at Mouza Jagasara and Mendhasal in Bhubaneswar.  It is submitted that the Ops through their local marketing agent motivated the complainant for booking of a plot under their project and finally the complainant entered into an agreement on dt.19.02.2010 with the Ops after payment of advance amount of Rs.1, 15,000/- on 10.02.2010 for a plot of land measuring to an extent of 5000 sqft for a total sum of Rs.3, 50,000/-.  It is submitted that the balance amount of Rs.2, 35,000/- was to be paid in 36 EMIs @ Rs.6528/- and as per term of agreement, on completion of payment, the land was to be registered in favour of the complainant.  On completion of payment on instalments, the complainant further paid a sum of Rs.80, 000/- towards registration fee.  The complainant submitted that after repeated approach, the Ops belated the registration and finally the Ops having failed to execute the terms of agreement, agreed to refund the amount so received with interest and accordingly the OP.2 issued a cheque bearing No.126864 dt.14.06.2017 for Rs.4, 98,928/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Bhubaneswar against their A/c. No.0199887172 in favour of the complainant towards discharge of their liabilities but the cheque on presentation in Andhra Bank, Semiliguda, it was bounced due to insufficient fund in the accounts of the Ops.  The complainant got issued a notice through his advocate requesting the Ops to make payment of Rs.4, 98,928/- against the dishonoured cheque within 15 days of receipt of demand notice but the Ops did not pay any heed to that request.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.4, 98,928/- with interest @ 18% p.a. besides compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in this proceeding.  The OP No.2 though entered his appearance on 06.08.2018 through its A/R and took repeated adjournments by filing time petition, did not prefer to file counter.

3.                         We have perused the documents available on record.  The complainant stated that the Ops floated a plotting scheme in the name and style “Cyber City” at Mouza Jagasara and Mendhasal near Bhubaneswar and the complainant being influenced by the local agent of the Ops entered into an agreement with the Ops on 19.02.2010 after depositing a sum of Rs.1, 15,000/- on 10.02.2010 for a plot measuring 5000 Sqft.  The complainant further submitted that the cost of the plot was Rs.3, 50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.2, 35,000/- was to be paid by the complainant in 36 EMIs @ Rs.6528/- as per agreement.

4.                         We have carefully gone through the copy of documents filed by the complainant.  It is seen that the agreement dt.19.02.2010 has been signed between the complainant and the Ops.  As per agreement, a plot of land measuring 5000 Sqft has been allotted for an amount of Rs.3, 50,000/- by the Ops in favour of the complainant within the Mouza Jagasara-Mendhasal at Bhubaneswar and the name of the project is “Cyber City”.  It is further mentioned in  the agreement that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1, 15,000/- towards booking amount on 29.01.2010 in advance and a sum of Rs.2, 35,000/- will be paid in 36 EMIs @ Rs.6528/-.  The above facts in the agreement are very much clear and the agreement is duly executed by both the parties.

5.                         The complainant further stated that he has paid all the EMIs by 10.12.2012 and on completion of instalments, he further paid a sum of Rs.80, 000/- to the Ops on 09.7.2013 towards registration fees of the land but the Ops with some pretext and other belated the registration and finally failed to execute the terms in accordance with the agreement.

6.                         The complainant has filed his bank statement which indicates the payment of Rs.3, 50,000/- to the Ops towards advance and EMIs on different dates ending with 10.12.2012.  Hence payment of Rs.3, 50,000/- towards the cost of land in full as per agreement is proved.  Further it is seen that the Ops have received Rs.80, 000/- vide their Money Receipt No.16393 dt.09.07.2013 towards registration fee.

7.                         It is the further case of the complainant that after receipt of cost of land along with registration fee, the Ops belated the registration of the plot of land in favour of the complainant.  As the complainant repeatedly approached the Ops for registration and after their failure, the Ops agreed to refund the amount with interest.  The complainant stated that the Ops refunded a sum of Rs.4, 98,928/- issuing a cheque vide No.126864 dt.14.06.2017 of Allahabad Bank, Bhubaneswar in favour of the complainant and the cheque was deposited by the complainant with his bank, Andhra Bank, Semiliguda but the said cheque was returned due to insufficient fund in the accounts of the Ops vide bank advice dt.19.06.2017.  The complainant in support of his case has filed copy of above cheque along with return memo of the bank from which it is seen that the cheque is returned due to insufficient balance in the accounts of the Ops.

8.                         In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this case, we have lost opportunity to hear anything from the Ops and hence allegations of the complainant duly supported by documents remained unchallenged.

9.                         We have considered the contentions of the complainant through his complaint petition and gone through the record.  The only dispute in this case is regarding non-handing over the plot of land by the Ops after receipt of full consideration amount of the land along with registration fee of Rs.80, 000/-.  The reasons for such non-handing over of plot still remain mystery.  If the land dispute arose between the land owner and the Ops, the poor complainant should not suffer due to such disputes.  When the Ops refund Rs.4, 98, 928 to the complainant while discharging their liabilities, it was their duty to keep sufficient balance in their bank account.  This litigation could have been avoided had the Ops discharged their duties faithfully and diligently.  The above inaction of the Ops, in our opinion, amounts to serious deficiency in service on their part.

10.                       Taking the stock of all the facts and the attending circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.4, 98,928/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.06.2017 i.e. the date of cheque issued by the Ops.  Further we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant for any physical, mental and financial injuries as we have already awarded higher side of interest on the amount payable to the complainant.  However litigation charges of the complaint are required to be awarded in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/-.          

11.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.4, 98,928/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.06.2017 and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)