This complaint is made by Smt. Sabita Halder, W/o Samarendra Halder, residing at 62/B, Bikramgarh, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032 against Bibek Biswas, S/o Birendranath Biswas, praying for refund of the earnest money for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said earnest money and compensation and litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-, respectively.

Facts in brief are that the Complainant was in need of a residential accommodation and intended to purchase a flat in the proposed building at Premises No. 45/C, Bikramgarh, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032 and came in contact with the Developer, i.e., the OP.  The OP represented to have entered into a registered development agreement with the landowner of the said premises for construction of a G+4-storied building.  The OP also told the Complainant that he obtained a general Power of Attorney from the landowner for the schedule premises.  So, the Complainant entered into an agreement to buy Flat No. 3 on the first floor of the building consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing-cum-sitting room, one kitchen, one bath and privy at a price of Rs. 19,50,000/-.

Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance in three installments to the OP, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, respectively on 24-03-2014, 11-04-2014 and 01-05-2014.  OP assured the Complainant to handover photocopies of all the title instruments and documents to the Complainant.  OP also promised to deliver possession and register the flat in the name of the Complainant, but to no use.  When asked to refund the earnest money, the OP promised that he would refund the same, but subsequently reneged on his promise. So, the Complainant filed this case, praying for refund of the money.

OP filed written version and denied all the allegations.  It is contended by the OP that the Complainant was well aware of the fact that as and when some hindrances, that cropped up in respect of the said building gets sorted out, the flat would be handed over to her.  OP confirmed the factum of receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Complainant.  It is, however, claimed by the OP that the Complainant asked for some alterations in respect of the interior works in her proposed flat as a result of which some confusion cropped up.  OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, wherein the facts mentioned in the complaint has been reiterated.  Against this, the OP filed questionnaire.  Complainant filed reply against such questionnaire wherefrom nothing concrete emerges as to how the money given by the Complainant was spent for doing so called interior works. 

OP filed Affidavit-in-Chief, wherein he has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the written version.  OP has submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,00,000/-.  Further, OP has alleged that at the behest of the Complainant, some alterations were done in respect of the interior works of the said flat.  Against this, the Complainant filed questionnaire, to which the OP filed reply.

Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for, or not.

First relief prayed for by the Complainant is refund of Rs. 3,00,000/-.  There is no dispute as to the fact that the Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the OP.  OP has come up with the plea that he has spent the said sum in doing some alterations in respect of the interior works of the flat as per the direction of the Complainant.  However, most surprisingly, he stopped short of spelling out the details of such work that was carried out and the amount spent.  Truth to tell, we do not come across any substance to accept such claim at its face value.  From the copy of lawyer’s letter dated 06-03-2015, it transpires that the cost of alteration did not cross Rs. 3,00,000/- and the remaining amount was kept with the OP.  However, it is noteworthy that the Ld. Lawyer of the OP too avoided mentioning the exact amount that the OP was willing to refund to the Complainant.

Clearly, the OP made a concerted effort to camouflage the matter of refunding Rs. 3,00,000/- by cooking up the story of interior decoration.  As such, we are of view that the Complainant should get refund of the entire earnest money paid, i.e., Rs. 3,00,000/- together with compensation and litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, respectively.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that RBT/CC/52/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.  OP is directed to refund Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant within 3 months of this order.  OP is further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant within the same period, i.d., the OP would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. over the total awarded sum after lapse of 3 months till full and final payment is made.