Orissa

Rayagada

CC/310/2016

Sri Ajit Kumar Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Srinivasa infra - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 310 / 2016.                                           Date.   10      .     8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Ajit  Kumar Dash, S/O: Late: Narasingha Dash,  Goutam Nagar, ,  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                                                …. Complainant.

Versus.

M/S. Srinivasa Infra, A partnership firm,  representative by its Managing Partner Palisetty  Vnkataramana, S/O: P. Sambasiva Rao, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam,  having  its office  at Door No.  7-1-73, State:Andhrapradesh.                         .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri K.Ch. G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

For the O.Ps :- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non execution  the  sale deed  towards apartment flat No. 209 measuring  909 Sqft.  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  25  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps were  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.      

        Heard from the learned counsel for the  complainant at length.

        We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                        FINDINGS.

        Undisputedly the complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the O.P. towards  advance  amount  and entered in to agreements with the complainant for the sale of Flat No. 209  but the  advance amount  was forfeited and also the flat was sold way to the third party  by the O.P. which was intimated to the complainant  by the O.P.  through his lawyer  notice  Dt. 25.3.2016 (copies of the lawyer notice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

        In the lawyer notice Dt. 25.3.2016 para-2  the O.P. admitted  he was the builder by  constructing Flats with the name  and style of Srinivas  Infra at Visakhapatnam.   The O.P. had also admitted  he executed an agreement of sale above flat  with the complainant  and received Rs.3,00,000/-. (copies of the  sale agreement  Dt.28.9.2013  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

        The O.P. in  lawyer  notice  Dt. 25.3.2016 para-4 admitted after due negotiations, agreement  was finalized on Dt. 28.9.2013  between the complainant and O.P. inter alia entered  in to an agreement to purchase one flat bearing No. 209, measuring  990 Sft. In first floor, situated  at Thungalam village, within the limits of G.V.M.C., Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

        The O.P. in  lawyer  notice  Dt. 25.3.2016 para-6  contended that  after payment of above advance,  complainant did not pay any amount.  In fact the complainant  liable to pay  huge amount  to the O.P.  Several times,  the O.P.  had demanded  to pay the balance amount and o get a  regular register sale deed but  the complainant not willing to come forward to pay the balance amount and to get  regular sale deed.   The complainant utterly failed to pay any amount  to the O.P. within the stipulated period.  The O.P. had already informed  the complainant  that failure  to pay balance  sale consideration, the said agreement was terminated  cancelled, so also informed the complainant that the advance amount was forfeited in view of damages in this contract. The said flat was sold away to third parties by executing the sale seed.  Hence this C.C. case filed by the complainant before this forum.

Coming to the merits of the case that on Dt. 28.9.2013  between the O.P. and  complainant  had entered an agreement for sale of the flat No. 209 with an area  of Sqft in the first floor  for total consideration Rs.17,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and  also had   received advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash and cheque. The O.P had also entered in to  an agreement for providing additional amenities with  the  complainant on Dt. 15.7.2014 stipulating  same of the conditions( copies of the same is in the file which is marked as Annexure-3). The complainant  had issued registered letter  on Dt. 28.2.2016 to the O.P.  for registration and delivery of the flat as agreed upon  on receipt of the balance amounts.  In turn the O.P. had issued legal notice  on Dt.25.3.2016  to the complainant with mentioning  all invented  false allegations  and informed  that the advance amount  has been  forfeited and also the flat was sold way to the third party.

While considering the grievances of the complainant  this forum rely  the decisions  which are mentioned  here.

 It is held and reported in SCC 1994 page No. 243   in  the case of  Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta   where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed  “The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling   the consumer  to participate directly  in the market economy. It attempts to remove the  helplessness  if a consumer  which he faces  against powerful business, described as,  ‘a  network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘ producers have secured  power ‘ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might  of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction   where papers do not move from one desk  to another as a matter of duty and responsibility, but for extraneous consideration, leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked”.  

Further it is held and reported in  C.P.R.2011(2)  page No. 287   where in the  Hon’ble National Commission  observed   “Consumer Forum  has adequate jurisdiction to look into controversy between  parties regarding unregistered   deed of agreement”.

In the preset case in hand  this forum  have gone through the materials  on record  and found that in this case the complainant  has instituted a case before this forum  for redressal  against the O.P.  in respect of a flat in question alleged to have been purchased  by the complainant in pursuance of an  agreement  entered  on   Dt. 28.9.2013    in to between the parties  which the  O.P. is not complying with.

                Again it is held and reported  in  C.P.R  2012(1)  page  No.2  where in  the  Hon’ble National Commission  observed “ Builder can not dupe buyer  by selling booked flat  to a third party”.

            In the present case  the O.P.  has failed to produce any communication letter addressed by him to the  complainant  demanding the payment of the balance amount  or having issued any notice stating therein that failure of the payment  of balance amount a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- will entail cancellation.

In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.P.   it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.P.     deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service  as per  agreement  which  intended  with the O.P and the  said payment is  made for the consideration for the said service.  When the O.P    has failed to  give such service  as per agreement   for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.P   is   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

When   the  O.P had  made agreement  to give service   interalia  registration of flat in favour of the complainant  for a valuable   consideration and even  after   receipt  of the said consideration in advance,  non performance  of   the  same in spite  of  several  approaches from time to time    by the complainant which amounts to  breach of  the  said   agreement and further  giving false  promise  with  an intention to  extract  money and  subsequently failed  in  giving  the  service  as  promised.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of agreement   even after receipt of the consideration in advance for the  same on the  part  of the O.Ps are deficiency  of  service and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

We observed   the O.Ps   service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.P   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to unfair trade practice,  delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps the complainant   sustained  financial loss  mental agony, damages  etc hence the O.P.  is liable to pay compensation  under circumstances of the case.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                ORDER.

In  resultant the  petition of the complainant stands allowed  in part against the O.P.  on exparte. 

The O.P  is  ordered to  receive balance sale price a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- from the complainant (as per agreement Dt. 28.9.2013  ) and to execute the sale deed followed  by the delivery of the flat   measuring 909 Sqft.  in  the first floor   preferably situated   in Thungalan village with in the limits GVMC Gajuwaka Mandalam, Visakhapatnam    inter alia to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The complainant is directed to pay the balance sale price a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-   to  the O.P. within  30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

            The O.P  is  ordered to comply the above direction within 3 days after receipt of  balance sale price from the complainant.

            Copies served on the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.              Pronounced on this      10^th.     Day of    August, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                        MEMBER.                                        President

.