DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.10.2018.

Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.   

               The complainant   Rama Krishna Sahu has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his   grievance before this Forum.  

               2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he entered into agreement on dated 03.04.2016 and gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Sri Rama Chandra Sahu as advance through one mediator namely Rama Chandra Palo for purchase of a plot measuring 900 sq.ft. land from Registered sale deed No. 10611600087 of Mouza Radhanathpur pertaining  to khata No. 253/1758 and 253/403 in plot No. 211/3162 and 211under Berhampur Tahasil. Another amount of Rs.50,000/- for the said land was also taken by Sri Sridhar Palo on his demand as mediating. The registration of land could not be done in due time. The complainant approached both the mediator and the land owner to return back advance money but not returned back. He sent legal notice to each by Registered post with AD on 06.10.2016 and 31.12.2016 but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- each, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for unnecessary physical harassment and causing mental tension and agony, Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.

               3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version as such the O.P.No.1 set exparte on dated 26.10.2017.

               4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the complainant in his complaint vaguely averred that he entered into agreement though one mediator namely, Rama Chandra Palo for purchase of a plot measuring 900 sq.ft. appertaining to Khata No.253/1758 and 253/403 in plot No.211/3162 and 211 of Mouza Radhanathpur. The complainant under law is bound to mention the material particulars of the impugned sites by giving the boundaries for each plot if the said plot comes under the purview of sub-division of the plot numbers. In absence of material particulars as stated above as decided under law that non-mention of correct particulars, no court can pass a decree which is executable. Further, the complainant is not clear as regards his own case for the reason that he pleads in para-1, “As per agreement on 3.4.2016, I gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Sri Rama Chandra Sahu as  advance….”, but subsequently he pleads in the same para, “Another amount of Rs.50,000/- for the said land was also taken by Sridhar Palo on his demand as mediating”. Evidently the first para of the complaint contradicts of his own plea of the foregoing lines of the same Para.  The entire complaint basically refers to the acts of the O.P.No.1 Palo and most of the episode relate to oral assurance without any proof there under. The Consumer Act invokes something related to consumption and the relevant cause and effects arise there under. In the instant case there is no question of any consumption and even if the non-execution of the relevant document does not fall under the category of consumption. The law is well settled, where breach of contract, even if any, the remedy lies not under the Consumers Act but the party aggrieved has to depend on the Civil Law and file a civil suit for specific performance of contract besides claiming damages for the act of negligence of the party concerned there under. In the instant case, the complainant as stated above is not clear and confused in approaching this Hon’ble Forum. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary costs.

               5. On the date of hearing of the case, we heard from the complainant and learned counsel for O.P.No.2 at length. We have gone through the materials on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had paid money in advance to O.Ps for purchasing a land but neither O.P.No.2 registered the said land in favour of the complainant nor the O.Ps refunded the total money to the complainant inspite of repeated approach. Though the O.Ps were executed agreements with the complainant for necessary registration within one month, but they failed to do so. In case of

 Sri Mangilal Soni versus Sri T.Marappa and ors reported in 2011 (2) CPR 57 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Complainant must file civil suit and not a consumer complaint for specific performance of agreement to sell”. In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is dismissed.

               Considering the factual position of the case, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps and the complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before any other Forum having competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance and he may avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 in the best interest of justice.

               The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd October 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.