DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO.294/ 2021
Mrs. Bithika Das, aged about 41 years,
W/o Gouranga Chandra Prusty, At – Duplex-7,
Sanskrit Enclave, Near Bharat Petrol Pump & Gopinath Complex,
Kuha, Bhubaneswar – 751002, Dist -Khordha
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
Susant Kumar Mohapatra, aged about 43 years,
S/o- Sri Lokanath Mohapatra, Director of Bimal Engicon PVt. Ltd.,
At – Duplex No.1, Sanskrit Enclave, Kuha, PS- Airfield,
Bhubaneswar – 751002, Dist -Khordha
…. Opp. Party
For the complainant : D.K.Mohanty & Associates (Adv.)
For the O.P : Mr. L.N.Padhi Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 15/12/2021
DATE OF ORDER : 06/02/2023
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, the OP, who is the Director of Bimal Engicon Pvt. Ltd. is a developer and made an advertisement for selling of duplex model houses. The complainant purchased a duplex house from the OP. At the time of negotiation, the OP told that, the project work would be done as per the advertisement and brochure published by him. The OP also told that in addition to the matters specified in the advertisement and brochure, he would provide certain extra facilities such as proper drainage system, plantation, society formation, etc. On 30/03/2018, there was an agreement between the complainant and the OP with regard to the sale of duplex house to the complainant. As per the agreement, the complainant paid Rs.45,00,000/- towards the total consideration amount and the OP agreed to give delivery of the duplex house by 31/03/2019. But in actuality, the delivery of possession was made on 12/02/2020. It is claimed by the complainant that she had paid Rs.4,22,620/- towards the GST charges but the OP had not given the GST bill or any receipt to the complainant to this effect. Besides, it is alleged by the complainant that, the construction work was not done as per the advertisement and brochure and the agreement. The OP had not fitted sal wood door frames in the house. He had not made arrangement for proper drainage system. Plantation work was not done. Nor was any society formed for the aforesaid project. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant files this case.
3. On the other hand, the OP filed written version stating therein that, all the terms & conditions of the agreement have been complied with. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. It is alleged by the OP that, on demand, the complainant did not pay the GST amount for which the OP was compelled to sue the complainant in the Civil Court for realization of the GST amount. Being aggrieved thereby, the complainant has filed this complaint. She has not come to this Commission in clean hand. As such, the complaint does not bear any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4 Perused the materials on record. It is a fact that the complainant had purchased the duplex house from the project of the OP. Consideration amount has been paid by the complainant. No doubt in the brochure issued by the OP, there was mention that, sal wood door frames would be fitted in the duplex house. But in the place of sal wood, the OP had used concrete door frames. In the agreement entered between the parties, there is no mention about the sal wood door frames or the quality of the materials to be used in the construction. Rather there is a clause in the agreement to the effect that, after possession of the Unit is handed over to the purchaser, she shall not raise any objection as to the defect or deficiency in to quality of the materials used in the construction of the Unit or any other accounts whatsoever. Although such clause cannot over-ride the statutory protection available to the complainant, but the fact remains that, the oral discussion made between the parties at the time of negotiation have not been reflected in the agreement. The OP has sued the complainant for the GST amount whereas the complainant alleges that she has paid the GST amount. All money receipts in respect of all payments are available with the complainant but the money receipt in respect of payment of GST amount is not available with her. May be, as the entire Bhubaneswar and its peripheral is affected by white-ants, the OP might have preferred to use the concrete door frames in place of sal wood door frames. That cannot be the only ground to come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is not the only purchaser but there were several purchasers in the said project of the OP. None has come to this Commission to raise any complaint. Nor did the complainant file this complaint in representative capacity. Considering the totality of the circumstances, allegations and counter allegations raised by both parties, I find that the complaint bears no merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP being devoid of merit.
The order is pronounced on this day the 6th February, 2023 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
