DATE OF DISPOSAL: 08.04.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is the daughter of the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.2 and 3 are the brothers of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has approached to the complainant for rental basis of her house situated at Shanti nagar, 1st lane, Haridakhandi Road, Po: Panigrahipentho, Ps: Badabazar, Berhampur Dist: Ganjam vide Khata No. 243/1858, Plot No. 339/4298 measuring Ac. 0.010 dec. kisam-Gharabari of Mouza: Madhusudanpur under Berhampur Tahasil recorded in the name of late Nanda Kishore Sahu, S/O Late Madan Sahu who is died since last 7 years. As per approached by the O.P.No.1, the complainant has agreed to take her house in rental basis (Bhogabandha). On 07.08.2021 the complainant and O.P.No.1 both are agreed and made an agreement in presence of the witnesses for a period of 2 years from the date of execution of agreement. As per the agreement both the party (complainant and the O.P.No.1) decided to Rs.50/- for house rent and paid to the O.P.No.1 by the complainant in first week of every month of the succeeding calendar. The complainant has plaid Rs.5,00,000/- to the O.PNo.1 as an advance and no interests given to the complainant by O.P.No.1 as per agreement. The complainant has decided to vacates the house of O.P.No.1 and talk to the O.P.No.1 about the vacate of the house of Bhogabandha but the O.P.No.1 has not reply to the complainant. After lapse of agreement, the complainant again approached the O.P.No.1 to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and after receiving the said amount from the O.P.No.1 the complainant shall vacate the house of the O.P.No.1 but the O.P.No.1 deaf ear to request of the complainant. The agreement has already lapsed since last 6 months but the O.P.No.1 did not turn and not refund the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only7 to the complainant and the O.P.No.1 has taken the said amount as advance at the time of agreement. Though the O.P.No.1, 2 & 3 alongwith the complainant are the legal heirs of the deceased Nanda Kishore Sahu and the above mentioned rented house recorded in the name of late Nanda Kishore Sahu and the O.P.No.1 being the widow wife of the deceased Nanda Kishore Sahu given the said house to complainant in Bhogabandha. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Compensation Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant in the best interest of justice.
3. The advocate for the complainant filed a not pressed memo. Heard the memo and memo is allowed.
In the result we dismissed the case as not pressed.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the complainant.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to the complainant free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 08.04.2024
