Orissa

Rayagada

CC/202/2016

Achyufa Nanda Lima - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Krishan Vani Dhoba - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 202 / 2016.                                           Date.     12    .     6  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri  Achyuta Nanda Lima,  S/O: Late Nilambar Lima, At:Raniguda Farm, Back side of Ortel office,   Po/  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                         …. Complainant.

Versus.

Smt. Krishna Veni Dhoba,  W/O: Dhanurjaya Dhoha, AT:Near  Misson Banglaw, R.K.Nagar. ,   Po/  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri  Gangadhar Padhy and associates, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non refund of  difference amount of Ac. 0.005 cents present market price  for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the  case are summarized here.

That  the  complainant had purchased the under scheduled property from the O.P. on Dt. 30^th. November, 2011  according to the  sale deed  ‘e’ Registration  deed No. 11581103297.  For mutation  the  above land in his favour the complainant   applied  at Tahasil office, Rayagada  vide  RMC case No. 91/2015.  During demarcation by the Tahasil staff  of the above land it was ascertained that  Ac.0.031 cents which was sold  by the O.P.  was originally not available at the spot. In the ROR the land shows  only Ac. 0.026 cents and the remaining  Ac. 0.026 cents land was not available at the spot.  Then the complainant   told  the  O.P  to refund the balance  Ac.0.005  cents  price  which was  received by the  O.P. at the time of sale deed registration. The  complainant moved the matter from   pillar to post  but the O.P. paid deaf ear hence the complainant  field the above C.C. case before the forum for redressal of his grievance. The complainant prays the forum direct  the O.P  to pay Rs.85,000/- per hata   for six hata  total amount a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-which the complainant was  given to the O.P. at the time of registration of the above land and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

 

This forum sent notice to the  O.Ps  in  their  detail   address by Regd. Post,  but the above   Regd. Letter  returned back  as revealed from the postal  remark  “Addressee left”.   The  above  action of the O.Ps   confirmed the fact that  they have managed to return the same   with an endorsement   postal remarks  “Addressee left” and refused to receive the same.  Proclamation  under  Order-5,  rule-20 of CPC  was prayed  by  petitioner and  a paper publication was made  on Dt. 25.10.2017  in ‘ KARNTIDHARA ‘ daily  odia  News paper  in  page  No. 8. Hence  service is deemed  to be sufficient. The statutary period of  filing of written version is over.   Ultimately the  O.Ps  are set  exparte   for not filing the Written version  within the time nor appearing in single  dates and hence this  orders.

During the expartee  hearing the complainant examined himself and proved the case by way of filing document. The complainant has also produced  the Xerox copies  of sale deed  ‘e’ Registration deed  No. 1581103297  Dt. 30.11.2011, and Xerox copies of the land  patta  bearing Khatiyan Sl. No.8/1190.  (Copies  of the above documents are in the file marked as Annexure-I & Annexure-2).  

In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps it is  presumed that the allegations  leveled against   the  O.Ps   deemed  to have  been  proved.  The complainant has produced  the  Xerox copies  of the land patta  Khatiyan Sl. No.8/1190 which was issued by the Tahasil office, Rayagada where in Ac.0.026 cents has been mutated in favour of the complainant  bearing  M.C. No. 380/2012 from Khata No. 8/269 & plot No.101/103/345/1197  but in the Registration  sale deed there was mentioned as Ac.0.031 Cents.    Hence it is deemed that the fact is said to be   proved, and this forum  considering  the above  aspects  tendered in evidence believes  it  to exist or consider its existence so probable that under the circumstances of  particular case to act upon the  supposition that the  said  fact exist.  The  complainant   had  deposited  the  amount   for the good service  as per  sale deed  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 sale deed  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps are  callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

            When   the  O.Ps  had made  registration  of sale deed  for Ac.0.031 Cents on Dt.30^th. November, 2011   in favour of the complainant   for a valuable   consideration and even  after   receipt  of the said consideration in advance,  non performance  of   the  same  amounts to  breach of  the  said   sale deed   and further  giving false  promise  with  an intention of the  extract  money and  subsequently failed  in  giving  the  service  as  promised.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to receive  the balance  amount   with  up-to-date  interest from the O.Ps  who have broken  the  contract, Compensation  for any  loss or damage caused to him  thereby,  which  naturally arose in the usual course  of things  for  such breach  or which the party  knew when they have  made the  contract ought to considered.

For the above case this from relied citation it is held and reported in   CLD 2003(5) page No. 472  where in the Hon’ble National  Commission, observed  “Service- Whether in view of amendment in Act which  included ‘house construction’ activities  within term  ‘service’ as defined   in section 2(1)(o), consumer forums now have jurisdiction   to entertain complaints relating to sale of  immovable property”-Held, yes.

In the present case in hand  undisputedly the plot, in question was for construction  a house.  This forums view house includes plots as well, hence covered by  the provisions of  Consumer  Protection  Act,1986.

Further in Registered sale deed  page No.5 clearly  mentioned  that the vendor has assured the purchaser that  he/she will assist and cooperate the purchaser in getting the under schedule property mutated and transferred in favour of the purchaser in the records of any local Govt.  authorities as the case may be at any time.

The Vendor has further assured the purchaser that if for any defect in his/her title in the under schedule property or part thereof: the purchaser   is deprived of the  whole or part  of the under  schedule property: the vendor his/her heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest shall be liable.

Further in  catena of judements  the Hon’ble Apex Court  and  Hon’ble  National Commission  where in observed  that the land for the purpose of selling it as plot  for construction of house the O.Ps will assist the complainant in getting the above  scheduled property mutated, transferred and delivery of physical possession  in favour of the  complainant  constitutes  by itself  a kind of  service and in that view of the matter when a person purchased a plot from the O.Ps he not only purchased the plot but also the service associated with it.

  

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  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.

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

                                                            ORDER.

            In     resultant  the petition  of the complainant  is  allowed  in part  on exparte  against  the O.Ps.

            The   O.P  is  ordered  to  refund   the present Govt. bench mark price of Ac.0.005 cents from  Khata No. 8/269  &  plot No.101/103/345/1197 of   Raniguda  Farm area of  Rayagada Town.

            The  O.P is  further ordered to pay  Rs.5,000/- as   compensation  towards  mental  agony  and  harassment  meted by  the   complainant  due  to   deficiency  of  service   of  the O.Ps  and litigation expenses  of  Rs.2,000/-.                                                

The O.Ps  are  ordered  to comply the above direction within two months from the date of receipt of this order.  Service the copies of the order  to the parties.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this       12^th.           day of   June, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.