This is a complaint made by Dr. Mohammad Hossain, son of Late Asghar Hossain, 4/2D, Convent Lane, Kolkata-700 015 against (1) M/s ABS Land Development Construction Pvt. Ltd., 13/B, Jatin Das Road, Kolkata-700 029, P.S.-Gariahat, OP No.1, (2) Sri Tapan Ghosh, Managing Director, ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd., 13, B, Jatin Das Road, Kolkata-700 029, P.S.-Gariahat, OP No.2 and (3) Smt. Sushama Singh, 3/3, Taltala Lane, Kolkata-700014, P.S.-Taltala, OP No.3 praying for a direction upon the OPs to refund entire amount of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest and further direction for payment  of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- , for harassment Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

              Facts in brief are that Complainant being allured by the advertisement of OPs, decided to purchase a plot of land nearer to proper Kolkata and entered into agreement for sale with the OPs on 24.8.2011. OPs promised that all infrastructural development work i.e. road and drainage including the facility of water connection, sewerage and electricity for the plot of land would be made. At the time of booking Complainant paid Rs.1,44,000/- and the rest amount was to be paid in 35 equal monthly instalments as per agreement for sale. Complainant paid entire consideration money in 35 equal monthly instalments.

               As per the agreement for sale, the plot was to be registered in favour of the Complainant within three years and also possession was to be handed over. Despite repeated requests and persuasion OPs neither handed over the possession of the land nor made conveyance deed in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant issued notice to the OPs for making registration of the plot and handing over possession, but of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.

                On the basis of the above facts the complaint was admitted after servicing of notices to the OPs. But, OPs did not make any appearance. So, the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

                Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and written argument.

                 Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed for.

                 On perusal of the annexure A, it appears that this is a Xerox copy of agreement for sale which was entered on 24.8.2011. As per this agreement, Complainant had paid Rs.1,44,000/- to the OPs, detail of which is mentioned in this agreement for sale. Annexure B is a Xerox copy of the details of payment made through cheque to the OPs which reveals that Rs.4,80,000/- has been paid. Annexure B 1 is a letter issued by the Advocate of the Complainant. Annexure C is the reply of the letter from the OPs where OPs assured the registration of the plot and it will be made by April, 2016. But, it was not done.

                  In the affidavit-in-chief, it appears that Complainant has  reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Further, in the argument also the fact is that Complainant paid total money has been reiterated and OPs did not comply the terms for agreement for sale and did not make registration.

                  Since the allegation of Complainant remain unrebutted   and unchallenged, we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to the reliefs in terms of the  prayer, though in a modified form.

                  It appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.4,80,000/- which he paid to the OPs. Though no receipt has been filed, but since OPs did not challenge this, the Forum has no other alternative, but to accept it. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.4,80,000/-.

                   Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. Considering the allegation made out in the complaint it appears that the claim of compensation is at a higher side and no detail is forthcoming for awarding of compensation to this extent.

                   In the circumstances, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded it would suffice. Similarly, Complainant has prayed for litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- which also appears to be excessive and hence, we are of the view that Complainant deserves litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

                     Complainant has also prayed for another Rs.20,000/-  which does not appear to be justiciable.

Hence,

ordered

                     CC/285/2016 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.4,80,000/- with interest of 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint within three months of this order. OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the same period. Otherwise, the amount shall carry 10% interest per annum till realization. The liability of OP is joint and several in nature.