DATE OF FILING                    :     23.03.2015.

DATE OF S/R                            :      15.05.2015.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     07.08.2015.

Sri Ramji Gupta,

S/o Shiv Kumar Gupta,

residing atP-3,Kalakar Street,

P.O& P.S-Burrabazar,Kol-700007………………..………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

  Zahir Khan,

  son of Rafique Khan,

  residing at 62, Pilkhana 1^st Bye Lane,

  P.S-Golabari,

  Howrah,

  PIN 711101.……………………………………………………………..….OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

               Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                                 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                          Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

  1. Complainant, Ramji Gupta,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 50,000/- with simple rate of interest, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, agony, unnecessary harassment and litigation costs alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.2,20,000/-in between 03.01.2013 to 29.04.2013 vide annexures “A”& “B” toO.P for taking a flat in the newly constructed building to be constructed by o.p as o.p is a developer .Subsequently,complainant expressed his financial problem to the o.p and requested him to refund his deposited amount of Rs. 2,20,000. O.P. also agreed to refund the said amount and gave three cheques of different dates. But all those cheques were dishonoured vide annexures C,D,E,F. Ultimately, on 15.04.2014, o.p returned Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter the o.p. never paid the rest amount of R s. 50,000/- to the complainant till the filing of this case. Complainant made several requests but all went in vain. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.

3. Notice was served upon o.p. O.P. neither appeared nor filed W/V. Accordingly case was heard ex parte against the o.p.

4. Two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with the Annexures filed by the complainant and noted their contents. Here it is to be kept in mind that complainant paidthe advance amount to the o.p. for the purpose of getting a ‘flat’ which maybe termed correctly, to arrange for a ‘shelter’ for his family which is nothing but a basic need for a human being to lead his life. In spite of having such urgent necessity, complainant was compelled to request o.p. to return that advance amount only due to his financial crisis and o.p. also returned Rs. 1,70,000/- to the complainant although after giving him lot of trouble. Moreover, in this case the o.p. has not filed any written version wherefrom it is crystal clear that he has nothing to put forward in his favour. And the allegation of the complainant against the o.p. .remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. We have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. When the agreement dated 28.12.2012 has been cancelled by both the parties and o.p. also returned Rs. 170,000/- out of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the complainant, the rest amount of Rs. 50,000/- should have been paid by o.p.to the complainant before filing of the instant case. But o.p. did not care to do that which certainly amounts to deficiency in service on hispart which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

     Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  113 of 2015 ( HDF  113 of 2015 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to refund Rs. 50,000/-  to the complainant within one month from this order.  

       That the o.p. is  further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation costs.

      That the o.p. is further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 56,000/-  to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid  amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization.

      The complainant is 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.  

  (    Jhumki Saha)                                              

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.