Orissa

Ganjam

CC/106/2014

Anirudh padhy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Midas Touch Assets & Securities Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Mr. S.K.Panigrahi, Advocates.

26 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GANJAM,
BERHAMPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/106/2014
( Date of Filing : 25 Jul 2014 )
 
1. Anirudh padhy
S/o. Sri Gangadhar padhy, ORT Colony, Near Gate Bazar, Berhampur.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S. Midas Touch Assets & Securities Ltd.
Branch Berhampur, In Frontof M/S. Walia Petrol Bunker Kamapalli, Berhampur - 760004.
2. M/S. Midas Touch Assets & Securities Ltd., Rep. M.D.
Sri Sobhagya Kumar Samal, Registered Office, 2nd Floor, Plot No - 779/1657,P, M.S.Sagar, Unit - 4, Bhubaneswar - 751001.
3. M/S. Midas Touch Assets & Securites Ltd.
Corp. Off. 104. 1st Floor, Shreya House Premises, Pereira Hill Road, Andeheri, E, Mumbai - 400099.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Tripathy MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Mr. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Mr. S.K.Panigrahi, Advocates. , Advocate
For the Opp. Party: EXPARTE., Advocate
Dated : 26 Mar 2019
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.03.2019

 

 

 

Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.   

               The complainant   Anirudha Padhy, has filed this consumer complaint  Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties    ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his   grievance before this Forum.

               2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a self employed and bona-fide customer of the O.Ps by depositing of a consideration amount to pu8rchase of immovable property (land/House/Flat).  The O.P.No.1 is the sub-ordinate administrative Branch of O.P.No.2&3. The O.P.No.2 is the registered office whereas the O.P.No.3 is the Corporate Office. It is a professional corporate house having Mida’s Mission 2020. It is a ISO 9001-2008 certified corporate house. It is a registered company bearing CIN No.U74140OR1995PLC004269/ dated 24th September 2009.  As per the advertisement of O.P.No.2, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- to purchase immovable properties which has been duly acknowledged by the O.P.No.1. The O.Ps agreed and ensured the complainant to provide a plot of 125 sqft or on expiry of the agreement return the projected value of Rs.30,000/- which is going to be completed on 28.06.2015. The period of the said agreement of the O.Ps has not completed as yet. Subsequently, the O.Ps to avoid the further refund of double the amount in 3 years of deposit amount as per Annexurae-1, gave deaf ear to the demand to know the status of the said deposit from time to time at the office of the O.P.No.1 & 2 but to no avail. Now the O.P.No.1 & 2 left the office due to hue and cry of the general public at large.   Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to return the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by the complainant together with interest @ 10% per annum, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.

               3.  The complaint is admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and filing written version on the date fixed. But the O.Ps did not prefer to appear even after publication of notice in the daily newspaper “Anupam Bharat” on 15.03.2014. As such the O.Ps are set exparte on dated 04.07.2017.

               4. On the date of exparte hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant is present.  We heard argument from the advocate for complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written arguments and materials placed on the case record. Despite several persuasions the O.Ps did not heed to consider the grievance of the complainant. Hence in our considered view the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for which the complainant at this stage is entitled to get some relief as prayed for. The Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held in case of Punjab National Bank versus Meerut Development Authority  reported in 2008(4) CPR 473 that “Delay in delivering possession of house/flat after receiving full amount for same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. authority”.

               In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only deposited amount of the complainant alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 25.07.2014 and the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- for compensation alongwith Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 9% interest per annum till final payment is made. 

                        The order is pronounced on this day of 26th March 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Tripathy]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.