Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/34

Smt. D. Kalavati, W/o: D.Kirshna Rao, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri D.Kannayya, S/o: Late D.Davit, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                          

                                                  C.C. Case  No.33/ 2015.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                               President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                        Member

 Smt.D.Kalavathi,W/o Sri  D. Krishna Rao,House wife aged about 36 year,  aged about 46 years, Resident of J.K.Pur ,Po/Ps Chandili, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                              …..…….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

D.Kannayya, S/o late D.David, Aged about 34 years years ,Conytractor by profession, presently  residing  with his brother  D.Sankar Rao, Contractor, B.C.Road,J.K.Pur, PO/Ps Chandili, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                   ………..Opp.Party

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In person

For O.P:   Sri G.Visweswar Rao & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      JUDGMENT

 

The facts of the complaint  in brief is that the complainant is a friend of the OP  and as the OP stated the he will sell the land at Kolnora Panchayat  and the complainant was willing to purchase the same  and paid Rs.9,50,000/- towards the part payment  and the total rate asked by the OP is Rs.15,00,000/- and the transaction is  a oral transaction between the parties. When the complainant arranged the rest amount  and asked the OP for registration, the OP  stated  that  the his family members are opposing the sale of the land  and as such requested the complainant to  take back his amount and has issued a cheque amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-  and when the complainant submitted the cheque  there is no balance  and the matter was informed to the OP and the OP  assured to  pay back  the money soon but failed to return the amount. Hence prayed to direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.9,50,000/-  with interest  and award monetary compensation for mental agony and award cost of litigation and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper.   Hence, this complaint.

 

Being noticed, the Opp.Party  appeared   and files written version inter alia denying the  entire allegations on all its material particulars.  It is stated by the  O.P  that the  or his brother  are never close to the husband of the petitioner and there are no visiting terms among them  and  it is totally false that the OP  has received Rs.9,50,000/- from the petitioner  and it is also false that the OP has offered to sell the land for a price of Rs.15,00,000/-. The OP had not issued any cheque to the complainant at any time for Rs.9,50,000/- . The OP further stated that  some of his cheques have been lost or misplaced and requested the bank authorities to stop the same if anybody presents the same . The OP was never served any notice from the complainant or  by the bank authorities relating to the presentation  and alleged dishonor. Thus all such allegations are false and created for this case.  The alleged transaction is not coming with the definition of the consumer dispute . The complainant is not a consumer within the definition under the Act  and his allegations and claim is not coming within the definition of the consumer disputes and the present case is not maintainable and the petition is not legally maintainable and liable for dismissal.

                                                            FINDINGS

                        Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per  the definition of C.P.Act1986?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps ? 
3. What reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Issue No.1

                        The Opp.Party has categorically denied  and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable  and  the dispute is not coming  within the definition of the C.P.Act. On the other hand the complainant  urged that as the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and as an additional remedy available to the consumers, as such as per Sec. 3 of the C.p.Act,1986  the complaint is maintainable . Section 3 of the C.P.Act provides additional remedy in  addition to the remedies provided under  other Acts and it is not in derogation of any provision of any law. The Consumer Forum has therefore jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence, in view of the above submission  of the complainant, it is concluded that  the case of the complainant would fall within the scope and ambit of the Sec.2(i) of the C.P.Act which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and the complainant is a consumer.

Issue No.2

 

                        It is the case of  the complainant  that he has given  Rs.9,50,000/- to the O.p   which is  oral transaction between both the partiers to which the O.p denied  and  submitted that he has not received any amount from the complainant . It is also denied by the O.p that he has not given  any cheque  to the complainant  and submitted that  some of his cheques were lost or misplaced and requested the bank to stop the same if any body presents the same. We verified the cheque issued  by the O.p.  The signature of the OP in the cheque  and  signature in the written version are  different   and  hence we can not come to the  conclusion that the cheque is issued by the OP to  the complainant. The OP claims in his written version that the some of his cheques have been lost  and requested the bank to stop the same if anybody presents the same and for the said intimation and services the bank has also collected the necessary charges from the OP  deducting from his account but the OP failed to file the same before the forum to substantiate his case. On the other hand, the OPO also not filed any FIR or intimation regarding missing of cheques. Thus, we can not believe the mere denial of the OP as he failed to file any concrete document to establish his case and it is believed that the   OP has taken the amount from the complainant and issued cheque with an intention to cheat the complainant. Hence, in view of the aforesaid  facts and circumstances of the case  e we believe that the O.p has taken the amount from the complainant  and taking different  plea  and  played foul game  with an ulterior motive to grab the amount  and   not to  return the same. After dishonor of the cheque of Rs.9,50,000/- issued by the O.p, the complainant informed the Opp.Party  regarding  the  return of cheque by the bank  then also the   Opp.Party knowingly avoided  and did not pay any heed or  he has not taken any step to return back the amount  from which  it clear that  the Opp.Party is not with  an intention to return back the amount. Simply he denied  all the allegations and trying to escape from all the liabilities to which we strongly oppose and  hence  we found  guilty  on the part of the O.p . Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.     

 

Issue No.3

                        As the Issue No.2 is answered against the O.P, definitely the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid by the complainant.   In this case the complainant has prayed for  the cheque amount of Rs.9,50,000/-  which was dishonored by the bank. Hence, the Opp.Party is liable to return back  the amount of Rs.9,50,000/-  with 9% interest to the complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order. Hence, it is ordered.          

                                                               ORDER

                        From the aforesaid facts  of the case the Opp.Party is ordered to return back Rs.9,50,000/- with 9% interest within thirty days of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to file  executing  proceeding  U/c 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 for realization of the amount.  There shall be no order as to cost and  compensation.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 18^th day of  November, 2015 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

               Member                                                                                President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

By the Opp.Party:  Nil

                                                                                                 President