This is a complaint made by (1) Smt. Santwana Chakraborty, wife of Sri Utpal Chakraborty, (2) Sri Utpal Chakraborty, son of Late Sunil Chakraborty, both are residing at Flat No.5, Block R, LIC staff quarters, 6/1, Chetla Road, New Alipore, P.S.- New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053 against M/S Prayas Community Living Centre, Tollygunge, an association of persosns, registered under West Bengal Services Act XXVI of 1961 having its registered office at 1st floor, 45/34, Moore Avenue, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 040, praying for (a) direction upon the OP to refund the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the Complainants (b)and further direction upon the OP to pay Rs.400/- per day being the cost of compensation for unlawful delay for recovery of the said sum and also (c) Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainants No.1 & 2 are the wife and husband. Complainant No.1 is suffering from brain tumour and need the treatment of radio therapy and has only daughter Sayarima Chakraborty who is mentally disabled from her childhood.
OPs claim themselves an association of parents of children with multiple disabilities and is engaged for providing different services to the disabled persons.
Complainants further state that OP initiated a project under the name and style ‘Swapnaneer’ at Langalberia Gram Panchayet,under Sonarpur P.S. which was under construction . OP assured Complainants that it will be completed within May, 2014 and will be allotted to the Complainant within June, 2014. Considering this and in the hope of getting a permanent solution for shelter with the concept of community living, Complainants agreed to hire services of OPs and paid Rs.25,000/-. Complainant also paid Rs.3,25,000/- by different instalments, as advance against the cost of dwelling unit and against the cost of allied services. Complainant became a resident member of the OP’s organization on condition to pay Rss.3,00,000/-. Total amount was fixed at Rs.6,50,000/- to be paid by different installments. This amount includes membership fees, cost of dwelling unit.
Complainants further state they did not disagree to pay further a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the cost of maintenance, tax, electric charges, etc. Complainant has further stated that they paid Rs.3,25,000/- for which they have filed money receipts.
Thereafter, complainants during the course of time became a member of the governing body on the approach of the OPs. OPs did not execute any agreement with the Complainant. Suddenly, on 10.12.2014 OPs decided to impose some terms and conditions upon the Complainant that the OPs would be legal guardian of Complainant’s disabled daughter, even during the lifetime of the parents and this is in contravention of the statutes. OPs asked them any amount for that purpose. So, Complainant became annoyed and scented foul play.
Thereafter, Complainants sent a notice to the OPs. But the grievance of the Complainants could not be settled. So, Complainant filed this case.
OPs filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. They have stated that this is not a consumer dispute and the OP is a registered society under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The sole object of the Society is to form an Association of Parents of persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and associated multiple disabilities and for providing permanent shelter to such persons. For achieving such goal OPs have undertaken this fashion and for that purpose they were constructing the shelters.
Complainant No.1 was an old member of this society since 2008 and paid his part of contributions for becoming a resident member in the project paid Rs.3,50,000/- out of the total contribution of Rs.6,75,000/-. Complainant No.1 was a member of the Governing body of the society for the period from 2010 to 2013 and attended several meetings. Now, Complainant wants refunding of the money which is unjust and un-lawful. Further, OPs have stated that filing of this case by the Complainants is not in accordance with law and so the complaint petition be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
Complainants filed affidavit-in-chief wherein they have reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against affidavit-in-chief OP has filed questionnaire wherein they have put certain questions to Complainant No.1. Complainant No.1 has replied to the questions. In his reply Complainant No.1 has stated that OP violated the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Similarly, OP has filed affidavit-in-chief stating the facts mentioned in the written version. Against this Complainant has put questionnaire to which OP has replied.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has made in the complaint petition.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.3,50,000/-. On perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant, it appears that the copy of the agreement has not been signed by either of the parties.
Annexure PA is a letter written by Advocate of the Complainant praying for refund of Rs.3,50,000/-.
Annexure P5 is the reply of the OP to the legal notice of the Complainant wherein they have stated that governing committee of the society of OP has decided to refund the amount to the clients through Bank Draft, after deducting the Bankers’ charges/commission and postal charges as indicated in the notice. Further, it mentions “please let us know the name of payee of the Bank Draft. Will it be Utpal Chakraborty or Swantana Chakraborty or both”.
Again, Annexure P6 mentions about the reply by the Complainant to this letter wherein Complainant has stated that the Bank Draft be made in the name of Santana Chakraborty. Ld. Advocate of the Complainants is aware of the fact that both the Complainants have joint account and they are ready to receive the bank draft of Rs.3,50,000/- after deducting the bank charges and postal charges and the bank draft be made in the name of the both the Complainants.
So, it is clear that the Complainants paid Rs.3,50,000/- and OP admitted that he received and also agreed that he would refund it it.
Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no dispute so far as the receipt of Rs.3,50,000/- by the OP and becoming ready to refund it.
Second prayer of Complainant is for a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.400/- per day being the cost of compensation for unlawful delay for the said recovery of the son.
In this regard, it appears that there is no law which permits that Rs.400/- per day compensation be awarded till recovery of the said son. As such, this prayer cannot be allowed.
Complainants have also prayed for Rs.50,000/- as cost. It is clear that the money which OP received and did not provide service related to a disable child and it becomes unjust in not refunding the money immediately on demand. As such, Complainants are entitled to cost of Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-.
Hence,
ordered
CC/234/2016 is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to refund Rs.3,50,000/- within two months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest of 10%. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost within this period.
