This is a complaint made by one Miss Mita Basu Mallick resident of Village 2 and P.O.-Durgachak Haldia, Purba Medinipore, against the Managing Director, Joyotu Land Development Pvt. Ltd., being its registered office at 15, Parasar Road, near Lake Market, Kolkata-700 029 and sales office at 34 Arya Samiti Road, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 034, praying for refund of Rs.1,18,000/- alternatively execution of registered deed in her favour and also for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            Facts in brief is that OP wanted to establish a township of lower and middle income group of people under the name of Louis Park, consisting of 308 numbers of different sizes in the district of South 24-Parganas. Complainant wanted to purchase a plot of land and booked the plot No.126 by an application dated 16.12.2004 on payment of Rs.40,000/-. OP agreed  to sale the plot for a price of Rs.1,18,000/-.

            An agreement for sale was executed on 2.3.2015 between Complainant and OP and Complainant paid Rs.40,000/-. A letter of allotment was issued in favour of the Complainant. It was agreed that rest Rs.78,000/- would be paid by the Complainant by installments. OP asked Complainant that the project would be completed by 31.12.2007.

Complainant  on several times requested OP to complete the project. But OP did not pay his request. On 16.12.2009 Complainant issued a letter through her Advocate, Sri Joydev Kr. Ghosh, but of no use. Again on 5.8.2015 Complainant received the reply where OP has stated that the project has been discontinued. Complainant paid Rs.1,18,000/-. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegation of the Complainant. OP has stated that OP intended to refund the deposited money along with simple bank interest. But, Complainant did not accept it and so this cannot be a case of deficiency of services. Except this OP has denied allegation of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case.

 Decision with reasons.

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP has put questionnaire. Complainant has also filed written note of argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the agreement for sale, it appears that there took place an agreement between Complainant and OP. Further, it appears that a Xerox copy of the letter of allotment has been filed which reveals that the Complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to the OP. Thereafter, there is a Xerox copy showing that Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on different dates that means 28.4.2005, 16.8.2005 and 29.10.2005. Complainant also paid Rs.18,000/- on 28.11.2005 i.e. Complainant paid Rs.1,18,000/-.

            So, considering the Xerox copy of the receipt, it is clear that OP received Rs.1,18,000/- and since the project has been discontinued there is no alternative but to order for payment of Rs.1,18,000/- to the Complainant, of course with interest from the date of filing this case.

            OP has challenged that this Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint is not  maintainable, because the agreement took place in 2004 and already twelve years have elapsed. In this regard it is submitted that it was the duty of the OP to refund the money taken from the Complainant. In the circumstances, it would be proper to direct the OP to refund Rs.1,18,000/- to the Complainant.

            Hence,

 Ordered

            RBT/CC/38/2016 and the same is allowed on contest. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,18,000/- with interest of 10% p.a. on production of original receipts to the Complainant within two months of this order from the date of filing of this application till realization.