Judgment dt. 25-04-2016

            This is a complaint made by one Sri. Krishna Chandra Mondal, S/O Late Manick Chandra Mondal residing at 200, Roy Bahadur Road, PS. Behala, Kolkata-700053 against Joyotu Land Development Pvt. Ltd. , Private Limited company incorporated in the companies act registered office at Panchanantala Lane, PS Behala and Sri. Alok Burman, S/O Late Kalipada Burman, Managing  Director of the company at 35/1 Panchanantala Lane under P.S. Behala. preying for a sum of Rs. 3,96,983 which consists of a sum of Rs. 1,30,200 paid by Complainant and a sum of Rs. 2,16,783 on account of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. effective from 1^st Aug 2005 till 1^st Nov 2014 and Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10, 000 as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that the complainant on the basis of an advertisement by the OP No. 1 came in contact with OP No. 1 in the month of July 2002. Thereafter Complainant went to the office of OP. No. 2 where he was shown map of different plots of different sizes under the project named Louis Park.

            On 10-07-2003 Complainant paid Rs. 50,400 through cheque No. 296645 dated 10.7.2003 drawn on Allahabad Bank. After that Complainant paid monthly installment of Rs.4,200 totaling to Rs. 1,30,200. Complainant was told that the land could not be acquired and so he is not in a position to hand over the plot of land as agreed.  On this, Complainant asked for refund of money with interest of 18% p.a. on which Complainant was told no interest would be paid and 30% deduction would be made.

             So, Complainant files this complaint with the prayer made therein in the complaint.

            OP Files written version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint. Further OP have alleged that the project was abandoned due to dispute regarding acquisition of land and this fact was informed to the complainant with the request to take refund of the money deposited with simple interest at the bank rate. But Complainant insisted for interest rate and so the money could not be refunded.

            In the facts and circumstances Ops have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the basis of above facts following points for determination are being framed.

1. Whether Complainant paid Rs. 1,30,200
2. Whether Ops informed Complainant about refund of the amount with simple interest at the prevailing bank rate.
3. Whether Complainant refused to receive the amount refunded and asked for higher rate of interest
4. Whether Complainant has proved the allegation brought in the complaint and is entitled to reliefs and prayed for.

Decisions with reasons

            All the points are taken up together for brevity and convenience.

            At the outset on perusal of the written version it appears that the amount paid by the Complainant is admitted.

            The dispute relates to the payment of interest by the OPs after the project was abundant and refusal by the Complainant on the ground that he sought 18% interest on the amount.

            On perusal of affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant it appears that he has stated that he paid the money. Further he has stated that he was harassed by the conduct of OPs because he could not contact OP No.2 as and when he visited his office. Further he has categorically stated that he asked for 18% interest. But he has not furnished any reason as to why he was entitled for such an exorbitant rate of interest.

            Against his affidavit-in-chief questionnaire has been filed by OPs of which Complainant has answered wherein Complainant has evaded the questions put by the OPs.

            OP has also filed affidavit-in-evidence and has alleged the transaction is a commercial transaction. However, there is no material furnished as to how the transaction was commercial in nature.

            Except above the written argument has been submitted on behalf of the Complainant putting a demand of 18% interest on the paid amount.

            So, finally the picture emerges that dispute relates to rate of interest. Complainant has sought 18% interest but by no stretch of imagination prevailing rate of interest either in 2005 or in 2014 was 18%.

            The claim of OPs for refund of amount to the Complainant cannot be brushed aside because in written version he has clearly mentioned this fact. As such it can be said that Complainant got opportunity of getting back the amount with bank interest.

            Projects can be abandoned for many reasons but the conducts of the parties are to be examined. Accordingly, Complainant here is seeking interest at the rate of 18% from 1^st. August, 2005 up till 1^st. November, 2014. Further, it appears from the complaint that Complainant deposited the last installment in July, 2005. Since there is no agreement in record to ascertain as to when the plots were to be handed over. On the basis of  reasonableness it can be said that a period of 3 to 4 years are normally kept for the actual allotment of the plots . So we are of the view that if interest is awarded from 1-1-2009 the object of justice would be served. But the rate of interest can only be 10% p.a. and not beyond that for the reason that Complainant contributed in creating this dispute.

            So far as compensation for harassment is concerned the amount of Rs.20,000/- would suffice and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- which has been claimed is well in order.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

RBT/CC/53/2016 is allowed on contest with cost.

OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,30,200 with 10% interest p.a. from 1-1-2009 till realization within 2 months of this order.

Further OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation  and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within this period till realization. In default this amount shall also carry interest of 10% p.a.  

Hence, RBT/CC/53/2016 stands disposed on contest.