Orissa

Cuttak

CC/91/2016

Sunakar Prusty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, M/s Venus Eastern(P) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A Mohanty

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                      C.C.No.91/2016

Sunakar Prusty,

S/O:Late Karunakar Tripathi,

Palli Raghunathpur,P.S:Kendrapara,

Dist:Kendrapara.                                                                           ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

M/s. Venus Eastern (P) Limited,

Represented through Managing Director,Hadibandhu Satpathy,

        Regd. Office at Bikash Nagar,Badambadi,

        P.S:Badambadi,Dist:Cuttack.                                                             ...Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.07.2016

Date of Order:  06.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty,Advocate.

For the O.P :                               Mr. N.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President. 

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details in short is that in order to have two number of plots, the complainant became a member of the O.P by paying a sum of Rs.500/- for each of the said two plots.  Two separate agreements were executed by the complainant to that effect and as per the terms and conditions of the O.P, the total cost of area of 3600 sq.ft. of land was of Rs.2,65,000/- and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 8.6.2008,11.6.2008,4.10.2006 and 28.2.2009 towards the payment of the plot and subsequently, the complainant was to pay in six E.M.,Is @ Rs.34,167/- towards the balance amount within 6 months of the agreement.  The complainant had paid the total consideration amount as per the proper time but the O.P had not hand over possession of the plots to the complainant.  It is for this, the complainant apprehending foul play, the complainant had not paid  for the second agreement excepting the down payment of Rs.60,000/- and the membership fee as paid by him to the O.P. earlier.   Ultimately,  the O.P has not responded , but had written to the complainant vide his letter dt.29.3.16 that he has no plot available with him, thereby requesting him  to collect back his money as deposited, within 15 working days.   The complainant in order to get atleast a plot from the O.P succumbed to the demand of the O.P that he has to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the registration cost and he had paid the same to the O.P on 22.4.16 with much difficulty.  The complainant after losing all his hopes and having no other way out, had demanded a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- in total from the O.P by filing this case.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of documents to prove his case.

2.         On the other hand, O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version where he alleges that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  He urged through his written version that neither the complainant being well aware of the terms of the contract as executed inbetween themselves, has filed to perform his part of performance by not depositing the total consideration amount within the stipulated period nor had he contacted for refund of the amount paid.  The complainant has also not opted to execute any fresh agreement.   Rather, the O.P had repeatedly requested the complainant when the complainant failed to pay the entire consideration amount in order to take back the money as paid by him.  Thus, according to the O.P, the complainant became a defaulter purchaser for which he has prayed that the case of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contentions of the written version as filed by the O.P, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.P?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.ii.

            Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant with the intention to purchase two number of plots had entered into an agreement with the O.P to that effect and had paid money and also became a member of the O.P by paying a sum of Rs.500/- for each of the said two plots.  Two separate agreements were thus executed by the complainant with the O.P to that effect and as per the terms and conditions of the O.P, the total cost of area of 3600 sq.ft. of land was of Rs.2,65,000/- and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 8.6.2008,11.6.2008,4.10.2006 and 28.2.2009 towards the payment of the plot and subsequently, the complainant was to pay in 6 E.M.Is @ Rs.34,167/- towards the balance amount within 6 months of the agreement.  The complainant had not paid the total consideration amount within the time and the O.P had not handed over possession of the plots to the complainant.  As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the complainant was to deposit money with the O.P but since because the complainant had defaulted, the O.P had issued a letter dt.29.3.16 to that effect, whose copy has been filed alongwith the complaint petition by the complainant.  On perusal of the said letter which has been addressed to the complainant from the O.P; it is noticed that since because the complainant failed to deposit the total consideration amount within 6 months from execution of the agreement inspite of several requests as made by the O.P, they had forfeited the allotment as per clause-13 of the agreement as executed inbetween themselves but they are ready to refund the amount as paid by the complainant.  The complainant has not challenged this letter of the O.P which was sent to him.  This goes to show that infact the complainant was a defaulter for which the allotment of plots by the O.P were refused.  Accordingly, this Commission finds that the O.P of this case was never deficient in his service and  this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            By not depositing the agreed consideration amount within the stipulated time, the complainant when became a defaulter had filed this case which is maintainable but he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed is to a limited extent only.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                               ORDER

            The O.P is directed to return the total amount of money as paid by the complainant together with the simple interest @ 8% per annum till the total amount is quantified.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 6^th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                            

 

   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                  President

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member.