Orissa

Rayagada

CC/454/2015

Sri Laxmi Narayan Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Jayaram Pichika - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                             C.C. Case  No.454/ 2015.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member.

            Sri  Laxmi Mohan Patnaik, aged about 48years, S/o late Dandapani Patnaik, resident of    Forest Colony,4^th line, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada.

                                                                                                                        …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Shri Jayaram Pichuka,aged about 30 years, S/o Anantarao Pichuka, ov aillage Gedaburu, P.O.Erumkam, P.S.Mandasa, Dist.Srikakulam (A.P at present residing  at Lanjigarh, Dist. Kalahandi, Odisha. 
2. Sri Sunil Jain, At: Main Road, Po/Ps Muniguda, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                ….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P 1: Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the OP 2 : Exparte.

 

 

                                                                   JUDGMENT

The case of the complainant is that there was an agreement  between    the complainant  and Opp.Party No.1 on dt.10.08.2015  at Bissum Cuttack  to the effect that the Opposite Party has received three vehicle and one Dozar from the petitioner on 21.2.2014  and engaged  the said four numbers vehicle  in K.S. Engineering at Lanjigarh and it was agreed that the Opposite Party  shall pay Rs.10,000/-  for each vehicle to the petitioner and total an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-  is outstanding against the opposite party to be paid to the petitioner and out the said amount the Op has  paid an amount of Rs.70,000/-  and the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-  is to be paid by the OP to the petitioner  as per the aforesaid agreement. In spite of repeated request  and approached the Opposite party did not pay the said amount to the petitioner nor paid any heed to his request and approaches.  Hence prayed to direct the Op to pay Rs.2,50,000/-   with interest and award monetary compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony and litigation cost and such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

Being noticed, the O.p No.1 appeared through their advocate and filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is stated by the O.P No.1   that the complaint petition  is not maintainable under law   and the petitioner and OP No.1  do not come under the C.P.Act and this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. The agreement is purely civil  nature and does not attract this forum to settle the dispute between the parties.   Even if there is a breach of violation  of the agreement, the petitioner shall resort to civil court for his redressal. The OP is not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner .The OP has paid the amount to the petitioner as per the agreement . Hence  prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with costs.  The Op No.2 neither appeared before  the forum nor   filed any counter. Hence, the OPO 2 is set exparte.  

                                                      FINDINGS

     

            We perused the record, documents and written version filed by the parties. The complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the O.ps vehemently argued  touching the points both on the facts as well as law. After hearing from both the sides, it is to be decided that , restrictive Trade Practice is defined  in Section 2(I)(nnn) wherein it is stated that, a trade practice which tends to bring about manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on the consumer unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include:

( b)Any trade practice which requires a consumer to by, hire or avail of any goods or as the case may be services as condition precedent  to buying , hiring or availing of there goods or services.

                        But  in this case we found that no buying, hiring or availing of services except  transaction of amount basing on the promissory note. Even assuming though not concealing of really the OP has agreed to supply the chips for the construction of the house, the complainant would pay the amount after supply of the chips but not before and did not insist to sign promissory note. It is purely a civil dispute and it is not maintainable in this forum. Hence, it is ordered.

                                                                         ORDER

 

                        As the matter is relating to civil dispute and monetary transaction through promissory note, the parties are directed to approach the appropriate forum to settle their issue.

 

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 22nd day of  November, 2016 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:

1. Copy of agreement

By the Opp.Party:  Nil                                                            President