Orissa

Cuttak

CC/105/2020

Sobhagya Dhir Narendra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nestaway Techonologies Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mihir Sahoo & associates

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                    C.C.No.105/2020

                       

1.       Sobhagya Dhir Narendra,

At:C/o:Biswajit Singh,Pramila Enterprioses,

Choudhary Bazar,Cuttack-753001,Odisha.             

 

2.       Mr. Nethan R Deepak,

Resident of Flat No.Door No.30,

Block Sector: Nagar Extension ,Madurai South,

Road:Plot No.4 West main Road Doak,Arasaradi,Madurai,

Tamil Nadu-625016.

 

3.       Mr. Malla Rakesh Ranjan,

Flat No.Plot No,.213/365,Building Name:Shree Maa Printers,

Block Sector:Raghunathapali Road:Panposh Road,m

Sundergarh,Orissa-769004.                                                 ... Complainants.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       NestAway Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

At:1546 & 1547 19^th Main Road,Sector-1,HRS

Layout,Bengaluru,Karnataka,India-5601102

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.12.2020

Date of Order:  12.04.2022

 

For the complainants:   Mr.  Mihir Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.                    None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

            The case record is put up today for orders. 

Perused the case record.

The case of the complainants in short is that the O.P has online rental market complex  business through out India.  The complainants of this case decided to book a flat on rent situated at building No.D-9,Flat No.402 at Rutu Estate Situated at Patlipada road at Thane for a period of 11 months.  (They have sought for return of the balance amount of Rs.43,104/- along with compensation from the O.Ps.).  It is further case of the complainants that one of the complainants is a resident under the jurisdiction of this Commission.  The Leave and License Agreement was executed in between the complainants and the O.P on 1.11.2019 at Thane for a period of 11 months commencing with effect from 6.11.2019 to 5.10.2020.  The document was registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office of Thane bearing document No.18762/2019 between the licensor Mr. Chandratrey Asutosh, aged about 59 years, Resident of Flat No.903,Building Name:Venkatesh Park Society,Block Sector:Pashan,near MSEBV Office,Sus Pashan Road,Pune,Maharastra-411021 and the licensee who are the complainants in this case.  The complainants continued to stay in the above described place but on 14.6.2020 they decided to move out from the said flat with a prior intimation but could not intimate the O.P. earlier.  So on 26.5.2020 they had sent mail to the O.P in this regard.  On 5.6.2020 the agent of the O.P intimated complainant no.2 that the move out was scheduled to be on 15.6.2020.  Since because no agent of the O.P turned up on 15.6.2020, even though intimated; the complainants moved out of the said flat by handing over the key in the society office of the apartment.  Thereafter they demanded to return back the deposited amount after deduction of the stay of 15 days for the month of June.  On the otherhand, a sum of Rs.35,896/- was agreed by the O.P to be paid to the complainants which was intimated by the O.P to the complainants through mail.  The complainants were constrained thereby to sent a legal notice on 29.9.2020 to the O.P demanding a pending amount of Rs.79,000/-.  After getting the said legal notice, the O.P deposited an amount of Rs.35,896/- instead of depositing Rs.79,000/-.  Thereafter, the O.P had turned a deaf ear towards the complainants for which the complainants have filed this case demanding a sum of Rs.43,104/- from the O.P along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.75,000/- towards litigation fee.

2. As it appears from the case record, the O.P has not contested this case and was made set exparte vide order dt.7.4.2021.
3. In this case keeping the available materials in mind, the following issues are required to be settled:

1.  Whether the case as filed is maintainable?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint petition as filed.

 

3. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief as claimed by them?

Issue No.1 & 2

                   From the case record it is noticed that the case was filed before this Commission on 15.12.20. While analysing the point of jurisdiction of this Commission as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act,2019, at Sec-34(2) (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

                  Here in this case as per the complaint petition supported by the affidavit of the complainant no.1, it is noticed that he resides within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Since because complainant No.1 on affidavit has given his residential address to be at Cuttack this case cannot be said not to be maintainable.  Even if the cause of action arose at Thane and the O.P resides at:  1546 & 1547 19^th Main Road,Sector-1 HRS Layout,Bengaluru,Karnataka,India-560102, he has online business.  Hence, as per the Consumer Protection Act,2019, the complainant No.1 has a definite case since because he had applied through online service for hiring the rental flat at Thane to the O.P.  Thus, this court has definitely jurisdiction to entertain the case.  Accordingly both the issues 1 & 2 are answered.

Issue no.3

            While perusing the copy of the deed of agreement as filed by the complainants strangely it is noticed that at clause-12(v) of the said deed it is mentioned that “Agreement has lock in period of 6 months applicable only upon Licensee and penalty for lockin period breach by licensee is deduction of 1 months license fee from security deposit paid by Licensee”.  Thus, it is not understood as regards to the basis of the claim made by the complainants against the O.P for which this Commission finding no supportive evidence, arrives at a conclusion to dismiss the complaint due to want of sufficient and cogent evidence in that score.

                                                           ORDER

             This case is thus dismissed exparte and without cost.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 12^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.

                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.