JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:—In this complaint, a grievance is made as regards deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The facts of the case are that the complainants had booked a flat in the proposed scheme "Divyam Apartments" at Nagpur. The agreement was executed on 26th December 1990. The consideration for land and construction is Rs. 2,20,000. According to the stipulation in the agreement, the construction was to be completed within six months, i.e. on 25th June 1991 and place the complainants in possession. 2. The complainants alleged that the housing loan from Housing Development Financial Corporation was asked by the complainants and, accordingly, Rs. 1,70,000/- were sanctioned on 22nd January 1991. However, the disbursement of loan was subject to the satisfaction of the authority after verification of the technical requirements. The complainants alleged that the opposite party delayed submission of necessary information and also delayed the progress of construction. The complainants further alleged that they have paid Rs. 95,000/- to the opposite party and, despite the payment, O.P. cancelled the booking of the complainants vide letter, dated 14-02-1992, with a promise to refund back the amount within 90 days from the date of cancellation. The complainants, therefore, approach this commission alleging deficiency in the service of the opposite party for arbitrary cancellation of the booking and not returning the consideration of Rs. 95,000/- and, thus, caused loss to the complainants. 3. The notice, under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was issued by this Commission on 18th August 1992. The opposite party received it on 22nd August 1992. The postal acknowledgement is placed on record, showing receipt of the notice by the opposite party. Despite receipt of the notice, the opposite party did not appear before this Commission on the date of hearing, i.e. on 13-10-1992, as a result of which this Commission proceeded exparte against the opposite party. 4. The complainants filed the affidavit, dated 03rd July 1992, in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also placed on record the relevant documents. The fact of payment of Rs. 95,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party is borne out from the receipt on record. 5. Similarly, the notice, dated 14-02-1992, issued by the opposite party to the complainant is also placed on record, vide document No. 12. The allegation made by the complainant claiming back the amount of Rs. The fact of payment of Rs. 95,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party is borne out from the receipt on record. 5. Similarly, the notice, dated 14-02-1992, issued by the opposite party to the complainant is also placed on record, vide document No. 12. The allegation made by the complainant claiming back the amount of Rs. 95,000/- is thus, proved by the complainants. We have, therefore, to allow this complaint. The opposite party is, therefore, liable to refund to the complainant, Rs. 95,000/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of payment of which comes to Rs. 23,394/- till the date of filing of this complaint. Thus, the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,18,394/-. The opposite party is also liable to pay to the complainant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as claimed in the complaint. Since the opposite party did not file written version nor made its appearance to answer the allegations of the complainant on the given date, we have no other alternative, but to accept the complaint in toto. We, therefore, pass the following order : 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,18,394/- towards the refund of the booking charges with 18% interest per annum. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The aforesaid amount be paid to the complainants by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants is at liberty to approach this Commission under sections 25 and 27 of the C.P.A. Complaint allowed. *****