Orissa

Rayagada

CC/390/2016

Krushna Chandra Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Kota Rohini Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 390/ 2016.                                 Date.  31   .    10   . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Krushna Chandra Sahu, S/O: DebrajSahu,  Chekaguda,

 DIST: Rayagada, State:  Odisha,   C ell  No. 9437590668   .…..Complainant.

Versus.

Sri Kota Rohini Kumar, S/O:  K.Surya Rao,  At: Komtelpeta, Dist: Rayagada.                                                                                            .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the  O.Ps.:- Set exparte..

                                                                                               

.                                                           JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non execute the sale deed  in favour of the complainant  as per agreement Dt. 1.11.2014 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed  the O.P   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  16 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P.   Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P. . The action of the O.P   is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P.  was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

On  perusal of the record  it is revealed  that the O.P  had   floated a housing plot scheme At: Debadala, Dist: Rayagada  in the name and style  of     Sri  Lakshmi Nagar, for selling  of  Residential  lay out plots to the parties.  Being impressed by the scheme  the complainant  had made sale agreement  with the  O.P. on   Dt. 1.11.2014. 

            The main grievance of the complainant  is that  inspite of  payment 95% towards   sale consideration   as per the scheme,  the O.P. did not turn up to make registration of the house sites  in favour of  complainant  nor the O.P refunded  the amount which was paid . Hence the C.C. complaint.

During the exparte  hearing the complainant examined himself and filed  sale agreement  made between the parties  on Dt. 1.11.2014 which was signed by  both the parties (copies of the same is in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).  Further the complainant  proved the payment  of the  money  a sum of Rs. 80,000/-   to the O.Ps  in shape cash  which were mentioned  in the sale agreement  at para -  6. Again the complainant  had paid instalments  in different dates  and obtained receipts  which are mentioned here.

Date.	Amount deposited.
15.11.2014	Rs.10,000.00
11.12.2014	Rs.10,000.00
9.1.2015	Rs.10,000.00
13.2.2015	Rs.10,000.00
15.3.2015	Rs.10,000.00
14.4.2015	Rs.10,000.00
17.5.2015	Rs.10,000.00
6.6.2015	Rs.20,000.00
9.8.2015.	Rs.20,000.00
10.10.2015.	Rs.20,000.00
25.12.2015	Rs.20,000.00

            The above receipts   which are In the file  marked as Annexure-2 to 12. It is shas been  revealed that the  complainant had paid   total amount a sum of Rs.2,20,000.00 according to agreement and receipts. 

Further the O.P. had issued  cheque  bearing No.  005322 Dt.05.12.2016 a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of the  complainant    which is marked as Annexure-13. When the complainant  put forth  the  same  before the bank for drawal the bank returned with  a remark  “Funds insufficient” (copies of the same filed which is marked as Annexure-14).

On perusal of the cheque bounce this forum found the O.Ps made mischief’s and  played  with     the complainant which is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

            During the course of hearing the complainant has submitted that on good faith  he had paid Rs.25,000/- in hard cash to the O.P.  but the O.P. had not issued  any  receipt on that amount. In total  Rs.2,45,000/- had been  received by the O.P.

            Now we come to the other aspects of the complaint. There is no dispute about the payment  made by the complainant  in  installments as per the receipts issued  by the O.P. and as per agreement.  The complainant  therefore complied the payments as per the terms and conditions stipulated  in the sale agreement Dt.1.11.2014.

But  thereafter the O.P. did not make registration  of the house site plot in the name of the complainant. On perusal of the  record  this forum  found that the O.P. had floated his scheme without  obtaining  land  from the  parties  which is unlawful.  Undoubtedly  breach of  agreement and whimsical act of the O.P.  is within the ambit of  Section   2(1)(4)(1)(v) and 2(1)(r) (3)(b) of the C.P. Act which  is related to unfair  trade practice and which is corresponding  to section  36 A of the Monopoly Restricted  Trade Practice M.R.T.P. act of 1969 under part- A of Chapter-III of the said act.

            This forum   further hold that the  non execution of sale deed  in favour of the complainant  by the O.P.   of the  allotted  plot in terms of agreement is a deficiency  in service. As per the terms of the agreement and on payment of  the  95%  consideration  as per the  Brochure of the agreement  the O.Ps are bound to take  steps for execution  and registration of the sale deed.   We found in the present case in hand there is is a lapse in the service agreed   to be rendered  by the O.Ps who are bound to  perform their obligation  as agreed to.  The failure of the O.Ps in handing over possession of the plot must have caused  pain and  suffering to the complainant for a long period.

The complainant has been unduly harassed by the  O.Ps for their  utter callousness and in view  of  deficiency  in service  by the O.Ps.  In our view the interest of justice would be met  if   without receiving any amount from the complainant   the O.P.   execute  the sale  deed  of the above plot  in favour of the complainant.

             In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps. it is  presumed that the allegations  levelled against   the  O.Ps. deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service .  When the O.Ps  have failed to  give such service  as per  sale agreement Dt. 1.11.2014  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps   were   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to execution  of sale  deed  or   to receive the deposited money  with  up-to-date  bank  interest from the O.P    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.

 

On  perusal of the papers  filed  by the complainant it is revealed that  the actions of the  O.P.     is unfair trade practice in order to grab the money of the complainant, which amounts of cheating and as such the OP     diserves punishment. The complainant unnecessarily put to undue harassment, mental agony, heavy loss and the OPs are liable to pay compensation for damages to the complainant  and the complainant is to be adequately compensated by the O.Ps.

 

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 money in advance  from the complainant. We find there is    deficiency  of  service  and  negligence on the part of the O.P.  and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

We observed   the  complainant feel the O.Ps   service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.P   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers. 

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

 

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed in part on exparte..

            The O.P. is directed to  execute the sale deed  of plot specially  in Komtelpeta Village to an extent  of Ac.0.038 cents measuring East to West -  30 feet South to North 57 feet  within a period of 2 months for which the complainant has already made payments and no further charges shall be levied except the charges  which are required to be paid  in terms of execution of sale deed of the  plot  and the formalities relevant to that failing which  refund  the deposited amount by the complainant according to Sale agreement Dt. 01.11.22014 and receipts along  with interest  @ 9%   from the  respective  date of  deposit  till  realization  interalia to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            Copies of the order  be  served to the parties  as per rule  free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.               Pronounced on this    31^st.     Day of  October,  2018.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President