DATE OF FILING                    :     21-04-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      28-05-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     17-10-2014.  

Smt. Kakuli Das,

wife of Sri Nitai Das,

resident of 66/4, Thakur Ramkrishna Lane, P.O. Santragachi,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 104. ---------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Sri Sujit Roy,

son of late Monilal Roy,

resident of 76/1, Abinash Banerjee Lane, P.O. Santragachi,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN  – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to refund the sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs  together with litigation costs as the o.p. in spite of receiving the sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- as an advance out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 6 lakh for repairing and renovating the ‘A’ Schedule property did not proceed with any work.  

2.               The o.p. in his  written version contended interalia that the money receipt was procured by the complainant from the o.p. on duress ; that the parties are near relations. So the complaint should be dismissed.   

3.        Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. The money receipt issued by the o.p. Sujit Roy dated 06-11-2012 unerringly reveals that he, out of the total consideration money of Rs. 6 lakhs for renovating and repairing the residential house of the complainant as described in Schedule ‘A’, paid Rs. 4,20,000/-. The plea of the o.p. that he was forced to issue the receipt by the complainant is too fragile to merit acceptance as the o.p. did not file any FIR with the local P.S. nor did file any complaint case U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. Naturally the dispute as raised by the o.p. on this score is set at rest. As the o.p. in spite of receiving the money did not make any attempt to undertake the removing work, the trace gross deficiency in service and therefore it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.    

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 232   of 2014 ( HDF 232  of 2014 )  be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the o.p.

      The O.P. be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. do further pay  a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for  causing mental pain and prolonged harassment together with the litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- within the period as above failing the total amount ( Rs. 4,75,000/- ) shall carry interest @ Rs. 10% p.a. till full satisfaction.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.