This is a complaint made by Smt. Sarmishtha Sarkar, daughter of Sri Ranjit Sarkar, of 27/6.Raja Rammohan Roy Road, Madanmohan tala, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 008 against (1) The Directors, C21 Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 32-S, Block-B, New Alipore, P.S.-New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, OP No.1 and (2) The Directors, Skywood Developers Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 32-S, Block-B, New Alipore, P.S.- New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, OP No.2, praying for direction upon the OPs to refund booking amount of Rs.40,000/- against receipt No.1060 and Rs.10,000/- against receipt No.1027 respectively as booking of flat measuring 780 sq.ft. and interest 18% and also Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.18,000/- as litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that the Complainant for purchasing 780 sq.ft. 2 BHK, 1st floor, South facing at “Skywood Estate Project” near Shyam Sunder Pally Main Road, Shakuntala Park, Kolkata, made a booking and paid Rs.40,000/-, vide cheque No.546440 on 10.8.2014. Again he paid another Rs.10,000/- against receipt No.1027 on 10.8.2013. After that he received brochure after expiry of about 15 days. OPs called Complainant and asked him to deposit another Rs.50,000/-. But, Complainant wanted to enter into a sale agreement and also requested the OPs to disclose the completion date. But, OPs did not make any assurance to that effect.
Over phone call, Complainant requested the concerned officer that her husband was suffering from epaHHH He Hepatitis C and Complainant issued a notice on 1.2.2016 asking for refund of Rs.50,000/-. But, OPs did not return the money. So, this case was filed.
On the basis of above, notices were served and OPs did not turn up. So, the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and also brief notes on argument where Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Annexure A is a Xerox copy of receipt dated 10.8.2014 which reveals that Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- and OPs issued receipt. Similarly, there is a receipt dated 31.8.2014 which reveals that Complainant paid Rs.40,000/-. Since OPs did not rebutt the allegation and contention of the Complainant, we are of the view that these two receipts prove the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the OPs.
Complainant has prayed for 18% interest on this amount. In this regard, we are of the view that the interest can be awarded only after the date when OPs did not refund the money after filing of this complaint. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled for 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint.
Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.18,000/-. Compensation is awarded where there remains detail description of the fact and conduct of Complainant as to how he was harassed.
Further, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded, it would be justiciable and similarly litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- would be sufficient.
Hence,
ordered
CC/391/2016 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.50,000/- with 10% interest from the date of filing of the complaint within three months of this order. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within the same period. Otherwise, the amount shall carry 10% interest p.a. till realization. The liability of OPs is joint and several in nature.
