Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
Hon’ble Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Petitioner - Sri Sanatan Dutta.
O.P. - Sri Mahesh Kumar Surekha.
Order No.6 Date : 30-07-2014.
The instant hearing arose out of the petition dated 09-04-2014 filed by the o.p. Mahesh Kr. Surekha wherein the maintainability of the instant complaint has been challenged on the ground of suppression of material facts.
The complainant contested the petition by filing written objection.
Perused the petition together with the enclosures filed by both parties. Heard ld. Lawyer.
It is the contention of the o.p. that he refunded the entire earnest money to the complainant vide cheque no. 854693 dated 27-12-2-13 amounting to amounting to Rs. 1,30,001/- which was duly encashed by the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant never received any cheque as claimed by the o.p. nor it was encashed. So the petition should be dismissed.
On scrutiny of the enclosures it appears that the complainant Sanatan Dutta received the cheque bearing no. 554693 dated 27-12-2013 for Rs. 1,30,001/- towards refund against cancellation of flat booking at 82, Girish Ghosh Road. He recorded his signature in the receipt. The complainant denies this receipt and his signature thereto.
To a direct question to the complainant who was present in the Forum, whether he received the amount, the complainant stated in reply that the cheque has been lying with the bank and has not been encashed. The copy of the bank statement dated 15-02-2014 of the o.p. shows that the same amount was debited from his account. With respect to the denial of his signature by the complainant I placed the signatures of the receipt, the petitions filed on 9th April, 2014, the affidavit dated 21-07-2014, the letter issued to the Bank Manager ( O.P.) dated 14-03-2014 sent by the complainant for scrutiny. All the signatures appear to be authored by the complainant himself. The pen-hold grip and the style of recording the signatures are uniform and identical. The complainant has no way out from the rigours of law. It is none but the complainant Sanatan Dutta himself issued the receipt to the o.p. after receiving the earnest amount from the o.p.
In spite of receiving the amount of the earnest money having been refunded by the o.p., the complainant filed this complaint on 07-03-2013 though the amount was debited from the bank account of the o.p. on 15-02-2014 and credited in the bank account of the complainant on 17-02-22014 so far as the bank statement of the passbook of the complainant is concerned.
What can be the better instance of suppression of fact than the instant one. This ought to have been a case U/S 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant ought to have been penalized for his such misdeed. Since this is the maiden attempt of the complainant, we are not taking recourse to the stringent provision of Section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
We are, therefore, of the view that the instant complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law for gross suppression of fact.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the HDF case no. 125 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed not being maintainable.
Supply the copy of this order to the parties, as per rule.
