HON’BLE SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT In short, complaint case is that the complainant had entered into an agreement on 08.10.2017 with OP No.1 for purchasing a 1 BHK flat measuring more or less 300 sq. ft. on the second floor at premises no.41 C.N. Roy Road, P.S.- Tiljala, Kolkata – 700 039 for a consideration of Rs.5,40,000/-. He advanced Rs.2,25,000/- towards consideration. But, OPs did not hand over the said flat to the complainant in accordance with the said agreement. Complainant requested through his lawyer for possession of the said flat but to no effect. On being compelled, he approached this Commission with a prayer for an order for possession of the said flat on payment of the balance consideration or alternatively refund of the amount advanced by him along with interest. Notice was issued upon both the OPs. OP No.1 did not appear and this case was heard against him ex parte whereas OP No.2 filed written version but, thereafter, he stopped coming before this Commission and filed no evidence on his behalf. POINT FOR CONSIERATION Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Complainant filed his evidence in chief on affidavit. He also filed written notes of argument. One agreement for sale dated 08.10.2017 and one copy of the legal notice were also filed on his behalf. On the other hand OP No.2 only filed his written version. Having gone through the evidence and the documents of the complainant, it is found that the said agreement dated 08.10.2017 was executedbetween the complainant and the OP No.1, who is found to be the developer of the premises, while OP No.2 is found to be the land owner. It is also found that the consideration of the said 1 BHK flat was fixed at Rs.5,40,000/-. From the memo of the said agreement, it is found that complainant paid Rs.2,25,000/- to the developerOP No.1 for the said flat. But the OPs did not transfer the said flat and hand over the same to the complainant by taking the remaining consideration from him. In his written version OP No.1 claimed that said deed of agreement is null and void or that he was compelled to take Rs.2,25,000/- as advance. He also claimed that complainant assured him that on refund of the said advanced amount of Rs.2,25,000/- from him the said agreement for sale would be cancelled. But, during hearing, he did not file any evidence in this regard and could not prove these allegations. We find that the complainant made alternative prayers – a directionfor handing over the flat in question on payment of the rest amount OR refund of the advanced amount with interest @10%. He also prayed for compensation and cost of litigation. On going through the materials on record, and having heard the submissions, we think that complainant has been able to prove his case and an order for a direction upon OP No.1 for refund of the amount advanced by the complainant along with interest would be justified in this case. Considering the rate of interest applied, no award for compensation is passed. Accordingly it is ORDERED That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and ex parte against OP No.2. OP No.1 is hereby directed to refund of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakh twenty five thousand only) along with interest @10% from the date of payment i.e. on 08.10.2017 to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. OP No.1 is also to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of litigation. If OP No.1 fails to comply with this order within the stipulated period, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Dictated and corrected by me. | 
