Orissa

Rayagada

CC/133/2021

Sri Majjigouri Prasad Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Prem Kumar choudury, the Managing Partner - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.____133_____/2021                                    Date.    18    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri    Majjigouri  Prasad Mishra, S/O: Sri Surya Narayan Mishra,  Situated at Opposite   Lamp office, Po: Tikiri,  Via:Kasipur,  Dist:Rayagada-765 015.                                                                                                                 …. Complainant.

Versus.

Sri  Prem  Kumar  Choudhury,    Nilanchal Nagar, 8^th. lane, Plot No. 11,  Engineering School Road,   Post: Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam, State:Odisha. 760 010.                                                                                                             …..  Opposite  parties.

For the complainant :- Self.

For the O.P.:- In person.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps      neither   allotment of plot nor refund deposited amount with interest  by the O.Ps   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

                Upon  Notice, the O.P   put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. Hence the O.P   prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard  the case  arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

Undisputedly  being  tempted by the attractive advertisements and several approaches made by the  O.P. and his agents the complainant became a member of  the  plotting  scheme launched by the  above named O.P.  in the year  2006 under the name and style “Sree Surya Chandra Estates.”  The  complainant became a member  of the said scheme  bearing membership No. 659 for purchase of plot    which  comprises an area of 900 Sqft in  Surya  nagar Mouza   of  Berhampur is located  on the Chennai Kolkota N.H.5 at Ankoli towards  Anapalli  i.e. 2 Km. away from Berhampur town.  Accordingly the  O.P.  had also entered in to an  agreement with the  complainant  on  Dt.20.7.2006   at   Rayagada.  As  per the scheme and under the terms and conditions of the said  agreement the complainant was  to pay  to the O.P. Rs.1,000/- i.e. membership fees Rs.400/- Ist. And 2^nd.  Instalments   was  Rs.600/- only and duration of the scheme  was  49 months.   Monthly  instalment  was Rs.300/- .  In addition to the installment  every member had  to pay Rs.600/- in every  6 months i.e. Rs.300/-  +  Rs.600/- = Rs.900/- and the difference should be paid prior  to the last installment.  Total cost of the  plot was Rs. 25,999/- only.

The O.P. in their written version contended that  the proceeding is not maintainable  as it is barred law of limitation as the cause of action arose in the year  2006 and closed in the year 2009 hence it is liable to be dismissed.

In the present  case the O.Ps had  defaulted and   committed in refund of deposited   amount. The O.Ps  never at any  point of time denied their obligation to  pay  the  deposited  amount with interest.   The  O.Ps had all along given false assurances to the complainant  and action on the false assurances, the complainants did not initiate the civil action for the purpose  of recovery  of the deposited amount.     The complainants acted on the assurances given by  the  Opposite  parties.  Because  of false assurance, complainant was  little bit slow and  avoided court   litigation.  Under the circumstances, blame can not be foisted on the   complainant.  The complainant had pardonable excuse.  Therefore  the delay if any   legitimately   condoned.

The O.P. in  their written version contended  that  the terms and conditions mutually agreed between  the respondent and the complainant  in which the terms  conditions are read as an except ‘Subject to jurisdiction of the courts in the court  of Berhampur jurisdiction”. Considering the said point of terms and condition the O.P  pray the commission to dismiss the complaint petition for the best interest of justice.

The  O.Ps have every right to earn profit from its customer, but it should  be reasonable or  acceptable one.  The O.Ps should not be a commercial  business  centres for profiteering  from the exploitation of such type customer.

In this connection this  District Commission   relied  citations of the apex  court which  are mentioned here uinder.

It is held  and reported  in Current Consumer  Case 2005  page  No.187 (SS)  where in the Hon’ble  State C.D.R.Commission,Karnataka  observed  “Consumer Protection  Act,1986  - Section -3- clause in agreement providing  for restricting the  jurisdiction to resolve   dispute between the parties – held  any agreement restricting jurisdiction to a particular  court constituted  under   General / Common Law  can not be extended to  Consumer Forums as they are not courts constituted under Civil  Procedure  Code  but only  quasi  judicial   authorities-revision petition  dismissed.”

The C.P.Act  is a piece   of  legislation intends to protect the consumer who suffered injury  at the hands of the other  party.  If the jurisdiction  to entertain  a complaint  is restricted to  Berhamapur  Courts in respect  of  the  transactions between a consumer in   Rayagada District  and the O.P.  necessarily all consumers  in  Rayagada District   are required to  go  to  Berhampur   for redressal  before the  District  Commission       established  in the  State of   Odisha.

The  apex  courts  view that  any agreement  entered into between    the parties restricting jurisdiction to a particular  court constituted  under General/common law can not be extended  to the  District   Forum, State Commission and National Commission as the District Forum or State Commission or National Commission are not the  courts constituted  under the Civil procedure code and they  are only the quasi judicial authorities.

In the  aforesaid  circumstances,  despite repeated deficiencies in rendering  service and making mis-representations to the  complainant  by alluring  them   had  taken  money   and  till date  the complainant not entitled  any benefits  from the O.Ps is a   gross  negligence on the part of the  O.Ps  and liable for payment of compensation  to the complainant.

From the above discussion  we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where the compensation needs to be  entitled by the  complainant. So, while partly allowing this case we order  that the  O.Ps shall be liable to pay interest   @ Rs. 18%  per annum  from the date respective  deposit till realization  as compensation to the complainant towards mental agony, damages. We feel that ends  of justice would be met if  O.Ps compensated with the amount awarded by us.

In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances inter alia material on record this District Commision considered view that the complainant is entitled  to get   above interest   in the instant case.

The preliminary objection regarding  barred law of limitation, Territorial jurisdiction  of the District Commission  which are made objection by way of  written version  by the O.Ps  in  the present  case before the Commission     is rejected. But  in the foregoing  circumstances  & with the  above observation  it appears just and proper being this is a welfare legislation to decide the matter  the following  orders  passed for the best  interest  of justice.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliance Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

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

 

ORDER.

                In  resusltant  the   complaint petition  is allowed  in part   against  the O.Ps.

            The O.P. is  directed  to refund  the deposited amount  towards plot  along with interest  @ Rs.18% per annum from the date of respective  deposit  till realization..

 

            Parties  are left  to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and  corrected  by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on              18^th.      day of       December,, 2021.

 

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT