Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      The captioned complaint is filed u/s 12 read with Section 17 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the “Act”) filed by the complainant claiming Rs.50,07,000/- towards mental agony and damage faced by the complainant along with pendentelite and future interest.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being a policy holder under the OP had applied for a Flat for residential purpose. Accordingly, complainant allegedly to have deposited Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of submission of application form. Later on the Flat could not be delivered due to area on which the Flat was to be constructed belongs to the forest land. So due to circular of Govt. of Odisha the allotment was cancelled. Thereafter, no money was refunded by the OP to the complainant. So the complaint was filed either to  deliver Flat on receipt of total cost or refund the money with interest thereon.

4.      OP filed written version stating that complainant has purchased a policy from  them. They have floated a scheme to construct the Flat for the policy holders. It was also advised that such Flat would be allotted  on payment of total cost. Complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on  submission of application form and accordingly he has been  allotted Flat No. 301 at Block no. B 6 building at PHHS (Phase – II), Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar on 07.4.2014. As per the Govt. of Odisha circular dated 25.4.2014,the area where the Flats were to be constructed belonged to forest area. The proposalto allot a Flat was cancelled. They had offered the money to be refundedbut the complainant has not received the same. Accordingly, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After considering the pleadings of both parties the following issues emerge for decision.

I)       whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

II)      Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation or not?

ISSUE NO.I

6.      Complainant in order to prove his case has examined himself on affidavit. Similarly OP in order to prove his case has filed one affidavit of concerned Superintendent Engineer. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his caseand deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a policy holder under the OP. It is also not in dispute that the complainant as policy holder has applied by filing application to allot a Flat duly constructed by the OP at Bhubaneswar. It is also not in dispute that complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- while submitting the application form. It is also not in dispute that he was allotted a Flat at Chandrasekharpurby OP but the possession was not delivered. It was also admitted that there was a circular dated 25.4.2014 issued by the State Govt. of Odisha banning any residential construction on the area of OP which comes under the forest land. The only questionwhether money which is deposited by the complainant should be refunded. When the money has not been refunded so far either by issuance of cheque or by NEFT or RTGS,the inaction on the side of the OP is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the OP. While the OP being a Corporation issuedthe brochure to allot a Flat,  it was their duty to ascertain whether the land belongs to forest area requiring proper permission fromMinistry of Environment. This is also deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP for floating scheme to allot flat to policy holder and for not returning the money. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.II

7.      The next question arises whether the complainant is entitled to any refund for allotment of the land. When there is already Govt. circular issued by the State Govt. for not constructing Flat at the allotted land, the money deposited by the complainant should be refunded. Till now the money has not been refunded either digitally or in cash. Non-refund of the money has caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not only entitled to refund of Rs, 1,00,000/- but also compensation for mental agony. Issue No. II is answered accordingly. Hence order.

ORDER

          The complaint is allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from the date of deposit till the date of payment to the complainant, besides the OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment. Moreover, the complainant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost from the OP. All these payment should be made within 45 days from today failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the money till the date of payment.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.