Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order :  

                    Smt. Karishma Mandal

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To pay the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 12.11.2009 to 01.05.2012 i.e. Rs. 23,054/-.
2. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
3. To pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 contacted the complainant no. 1 for installation of Tower of their company over the land of complainant no. 1 and accordingly Papers were prepared and rs. 35,000/- was deposited by the complainant as security money on 12.11.2009. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
2. Similarly the opposite party no. 1 and 2 contacted the complainant no. 2 for installation of Tower of their company and accordingly N.O.C. money receipt, Affidavit and Agreement were prepared and security money of Rs. 35,000/- was paid by the complainant. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
3. It is not pertinent to note that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid by both the complainants on account of Misc. expenditure.
4. In this way all together Rs. 1,10,000/- paid by both the complainants for the same.
5. It is also point out that Rs. 3,000/- each will be paid by the opposite party no. 1 to the complainant no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- will be paid to complainant no. 2 per month as land rent and maintenance and accordingly these agreement was made for the period of 9 years only.
6. The opposite party no. 1 neither installed the Tower nor paid the monthly rent and did not returned the amount of security money.
7. In this way both the complainant suffered huge loss irreparable loss due to non – installation of Tower.
8. Both the complainants contacted the opposite parties for redressal of their bonafide grievances but the opposite party has not taken trouble to redress the grievance of the complainants.
9. Both the complainants contacted both the opposite parties for realisation of sad amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- due to non compliance of agreement.
10. Both the opposite parties decided to refund the amount in question and accordingly by opposite party no. 2 given an undertaking on 30.04.2010 and accordingly he assured that if the Tower will not be installed or the monthly rent will not be paid then the invested amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- will be paid by him. ( Vide Annexure- 3 )
11. The work was not done nor the land rent was paid by the opposite party and in this circumstances a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- was issued by the opposite party no. 2 on that account on 12.04.2012 vide cheque no. 003346 but the same was dishonoured due to exceeds arrangement vide dated 25.04.2012. ( Vide Annexure – 4 )
12. In the background of aforesaid facts and circumstances as stated the complainants have got a heavy irreparable loss due to non – installation of Tower and the assessment of monitory loss is being assessed annexed herewith in the following manners :-

13. In this way the complainants are entitled for aforesaid amount given in above schedule.
14. This complaint is being filed well within jurisdiction and well within time.
15. The complainants have not filed any case for the relief sought for in this matter.

It is the case of complainant that opposite party contacted the complainants for permitting them to install the Tower of the company over their land and consequently necessary papers were prepared and executed by the complainant no. 1 and 2 with opposite party. Both the complainant have deposited 35,000/- and the documents executed on their behalf has been annexed as annexure – 1 series and 2 series. It appears that annexure – 1 and 2 series of the documents are either in the name of Nazma Khatoon and Tajuddin. It appears from the record that complainant no. 1 Nazma Khatoon is the wife of complainant no. 2 and complainant no. 3 Firoz Ahmed appears to be son of complainant no. 1 and 2.

There is no documents in the name of complainant no. 3 however it appears that being the son of complainant no. 1 and 2 he has sworn the Affidavit and the certain cheque ( Annexure – 4 ) issued in his name by opposite party. From the documents referred above it is crystal clear that opposite party has not fulfilled his promise as agreed by them in the agreement. The details of opposite party has been mentioned in annexure – 3 series which are on the record. The complainants have given a chart in Para – 12 of their complaint petition from perusal of it appears that they have paid Rs. 1,10,000/- to the opposite party. From the chart it appears that the complainants have prayed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 4,93,054/- by way of paid amount, interest, litigation etc.

From the order sheet it appears that despite notice when the opposite party did not appeared then vide order dated 23.10.2013 Tamila was declared to be valid.

From judicial record it appears that the name of opposite party no. 1 stands deleted vide order dated 02.11.2012 of this forum and opposite party no. 2 did not appeared despite registered notice on fresh address. As there is no counter version of the opposite party on the record and the facts in their complaint petition been asserted by the complainant on affidavit. Hence we have no option to except their version.

It is needless to say that the facts of complaint petition narrated above clearly discloses deficiency on the part of opposite party Srawan Kumar.

Hence, in view of the facts and discussion made above we direct the opposite party to return Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant no. 1 and 2 within a period a two months of the date of receipt of certified copy of original of this order failing which the interest rate will @ 11% per annum till final payment.

We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- by way of litigation and compensation etc. within the aforesaid period of two months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                                   President