DATE OF FILING : 30-04-2013. DATE OF S/R : 17-07-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12-09-2013. 1. Basudeb Dutta, son of late Chiro Ranjan Dutta. 2. Smt. Labanya Lata Dutta, wife of Sri Basudeb Dutta. both are residing at c/o. Sailendra Nath Khan, Village & P.O. Tentulkuli, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711409.--------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS. - Versus - 1. Sri Deb Kumar Ghosh, son of late Shibpada Ghosh, residing at village – Monshadanga, P.O. Bankra, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711409. 2. Smt. Sandhya Mondal, wife of Sri Pranab Kumar Mondal, residing at Village & P.O. Salap, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711409. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bankra Branch, Bankra, Howrah Amta Road, P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711403. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. 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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the advance money together with interest from 20-06-2012 till realization of the same and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental pain and harassment together with litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of the agreement and receipt of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant on 28-06-2011 as advance money. 2. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in the written version contended interalia that after the primary construction work, they demanded more money from the complainants from the progress of the work but the complainants refused to pay anything more. So the complaint should be dismissed forthwith. 3. In spite of service of notice the O.P. no. 3 did not turn up. So the case was heard ex parte against O.P. no. 3. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the O.Ps. received Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner no. 2 as advance money through cheque no. 625037 of SBI Bankra Branch dated 28-06-2011. For the refund of the same the complainants served notice upon the O.Ps. but to no effect. As the dream of the complainant for having a new flat has been frustrated and they are not eager to proceed further, the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 should refund the same to the complainants for their failure to complete the construction work. Therefore, this is 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. 135 of 2013 ( HDF 135 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. nos. 1 & 2 with costs and dismissed ex parte against the O.P. no. 3 without costs. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be directed jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainants together with the interest @ Rs. 10% per annum since 28-06-2011 till full payment within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainants are entitled to a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.P. nos. 1 & 2. No order as to the compensation. The complainants are 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 ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. |