For the complainant- Sri Alok Ku. Panda with Association, Advocates, Berhampur.
Date of Filing- 1.10.2012
Date of Disposal-12.9.2013
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
1- Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party in not providing the land to the complainant despite receipt of consideration amount is the sole grievance of the complainant.
2- The complainant alleges that the Opposite Party is a public limited company, inter-alia, deals with the land business and to allot lands to the purchaser in easy instalments . The complainant with a hope to purchase a land for her own, has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) vide money receipt Nos.414 dated 23.3..2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- and No.419 dt.25.3.2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- respectively with the Opposite Party. While receiving the money, the Opposite Party assured her to supply the land documents with other relevant documents with immediate effect as well as to allot the land and execute the sale deed very soon. Despite several personal approaches as well as reminders the Opposite Party did not allot him the land and subsequently tried to avoid with some ulterior motives. Finally, the complainant in her letter dated 9.8.2012 requested the Opposite Party to get refund of her deposited amount. But the Opposite Party remained callous without intimating the fate of her deposited amount. Finding no other way out, the complainant has preferred the present consumer complaint under Section 12 of the C.P.Act,1986 with a prayer for getting refund of her deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-for the harassment and mental agony caused for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party.
3. The Opposite Party was served notice through this Forum by Registered Post with A.D. and the said notice was returned undelivered with postal endorsement “Abolished without information, returned to sender”. Subsequently, notice through daily newspaper namely ‘The Khabara’ was published upon the Opposite Party to make the notice sufficient. Despite publication of notice in the above daily newspaper, the Opposite Party did not turn up and as a result it is deemed that the notice upon the Opposite Party is held to be sufficient. Despite the above notice, the Opposite Party did not put their appearance as a result the Opposite Party was set ex-parte and the case is heard ex-parte from the side of the complainant.
4. The complainant in support of his case has filed certain documents which are placed on record and marked as Ext.1 to 4 respectively.
5- We have gone through the case in detail, perused the documents filed by the complainant and heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant at a length. From the document (Annexure-1), it goes to show that the Opposite Party’s company is a public limited company which was incorporated in 2009 bearing Corporate Identity No.U65990OR2009PLC010735. The money receipts bearing No.414 dated 23.3.2011 and No.419 dt.25.3.2011 respectively issued by Honeycomb Holdings Ltd. reveals that the said receipt has been issued by the Opposite Party against receipt of initial deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant. The above receipt issued by the Opposite Party clearly reveals that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with the Opposite Party to purchase a land. After receipt of the initial deposit the Opposite Party is seemed to be remained silent without intimating the complainant about allotment of land as assured. Despite several persuasion of the complainant when the Opposite Party remained callous, the complainant by her letter dated 9.8.2012 requested to get refund of his deposited amount. When all such efforts of the complainant did not yield any result she filed this present case.
6. From the above facts, it is clear that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to purchase a land from the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party did neither allot any land in her favour nor make any correspondence with the complainant after receipt of a lump sum. Therefore, in our considered view, non- allotment of land even after receipt of consideration amount from the complainant is deemed to be an unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get her hard earned money.
7. In the result, we allow the case of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.,10,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the complainant together with interest thereof at the rate of 6%( six percent) per annum from the date of filing of this complaint petition i.e.1.10.2012 till its actual payment. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The above amount has to be paid by the Opposite Party within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum thereafter. The case is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced in the Open Forum on this 12th day of September,2013 under the signature and seal of the Forum. Copy of the order be served on the parties free of cost..
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
President
Member
Member