Sri Kamal De, President

The case of the complainant in short is that he is one of the consumers of the OP parties.

The OP was to allot 197 flats lying at Basudevpur, Haldia on long term lease basis to the intending persons in the year 2012. The complainant applied for the same. OP party issued offer letter being memo no. 1354(7)/HAD/XV-35(part) dtd. 04.09.2012 for the allotment of the flat no. HC-4/13(3^rd Floor) on long term lease basis for 90 years at Basudevpur, Haldia in favour of the complainant. The complainant paid total lease amount of Rs.433440/-. Due to financial crisis, the complainant could not be able to register the lease deed within the stipulated period. The complainant submitted a letter requesting the OP to refund the said deposited money on 12.06.2013. The OP released Rs.390096/- to the complainant towards refund of lease premium for allotment of the said flat after deduction of Rs.43344/- as administrative charge from the total lease premium of Rs.433440/- and the complainant received the refund money on 02.07.2014. The complainant was totally confused for such deduction. The complainant got an information as per RTI Act on 07.01.2015 that the OP had refunded the full premium as deposited to another allottee for another flat in the same complex at Basudevpur, Haldia, namely, Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar. OP in response to RTI application on 22.04.2015 informed to the complainant that full premium as deposited by Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar, another depositor was refunded to her. The complainant served a demand notice by his Advocate for refund of an amount of Rs.43344/-, but to no good. The cause of action arose on and from 02.07.2014, the date of receiving the refund amount after deduction. The complainant has prayed for the refund of deducted amount alongwith compensation for harassment for mental agony and also for litigation cost.

OP, as we find, from the materials on record applied before this Forum for sometime vide letter 2069/HAD/XV-35(Part)/A/2013 dtd. 27.11.2015, to plead its case but subsequently did not turn up to contest the case. The case accordingly is heard exparte.

Points for decision

1.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.43344/- deducted from his lease premium of Rs.433440/- by the OP?

2.       To what other relief or relieves, if any, is the complainant entitled to?

Decision with reason

We have gone through the documents filed from the side of the complainant. We find that flat no. HC-4/13 (3^rd floor) at 197 flats complex adjacent to Priyambada Housing Estate, Basudevpur, Haldia, Purba Medinipur was allotted to the complainant on long term basis for 90 years on certain terms and conditions vide memo no. 1354(7)/HAD/XV-35(part) dtd. 04.09.2012 by the OP. It also appears that the complainant by two installments deposited the total allotment money of Rs.433440/- through the Demand Drafts. The complainant could not be able to register the flats on the ground of economic hardship, mother’ s heart operation at AMRI, Kolkata and for his own Gallbladder stone operation at CMRI, Kolkata and also for younger brother’s Gallbladder stone operation at Contai Nursing Home, as stated by the complainant. Complainant accordingly applied before the OP for refund of the deposited money against the allotted flat no. HC-4/13 (3^rd floor). It appears that the OP refunded lease premium of Rs.390096/- vide letter dtd. 30.06.2014 after deduction of Rs. 43344/- as administrative charge from the total lease premium of Rs. 433440/-. From the information from the RTI Act, 2005 in response to complainant’s application under RTI Act, dtd. 07.01.2015 we find that full premium as deposited by one Mrs. Jyotsna Sarkar against allotment of flat at 197 flat complex Basusdevpur, Haldia had been refunded to her by the same OP. So it appears that it is not transparent why the OP deducted of Rs. 43344/- as administrative charge from the total lease premium of Rs.433440/- of the complainant. Moreover, from the terms and conditions, as contained in the offer letter, in favour of the complainant vide OP’s memo no. 1354(7)/HAD/XV-35(part) dtd. 04.09.2012, there is no stipulation that an amount of Rs.43344/- being 10% of the total deposited money would be deducted as administrative charges if the complainant fails to take the flat on registration.

OP has not contested the case. The case of the complainant goes unchallenged and uncontroverted. In absence of any contrary and controverting materials and having regard to RTI information and in absence of any clause in the terms and conditions in the offer letter of the OP dtd. 04.09.2012 we think that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount as deducted by the OP towards administrative charges. More so, when full premium as deposited by another allottee namely, Mrs. Jyotsna Sarkar against her flat at 197 flat complex, Bausudevpur, Haldia was refunded to her by the OP itself. However, considering the nature of the case, we are not inclined to pass any amount towards harassment and mental agony in favour of the complainant, as the complainant himself has failed to take the flat in question on registration on the ground of his economic hardship as stated by him. It appears that he surrendered the flat out of his own volition.

Hence, it is,

Ordered

the instant case being no CC/87/2015 is allowed exparte against the OP but on merit. OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.43344/- to the complainant alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5000/- within 40 days from the date of passing this order, i.d. the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into Execution and in that case the OP will be liable to pay an amount of Rs.50/- per diem till realization of the entire amount.