Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/119

Sri Bomali Kanta Rao, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Agro Gold, Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

…

C.C. Case  No.119/ 2015.                                                            Date.         7.11.  2017

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini Kumar  Mohapatra,                                      President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                         Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                 Member

Sri B. Kanta Rao, S/O: Late B.Teleya, At:Hatipathar Road, Goutam Nagar, Po/ Dist. Rayagada,Odisha,                                                               ………Complainant

                                                                                    Vrs.

1.The Branch Manager, Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt Ltd, Rayagada

2. The Managing Director,  Agri Gold Farm Estate India  Pvt. Ltd., Agri Gold house, Plot No.6, D- No. 40-6-3, Old Revenue colony, Nimmagadda, Somasekhara Road,  Lobbipet, 520010,  Vijayawada,   (A.P. ).

3.Sri M.GAneswar Rao, S/O:  M.Prasad Rao, Agent  of Agri  Gold, Residing at HathipatharRoad, Raniguda  firm,  Rayagada(Odisha).      ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps :- Sri  A.V.L.N.Sarma and  others,Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT

                The  present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of deposited  amount.   The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

1.         That  the   O.P  made  advertisement and by  public  notification has proposed  to  give  a piece of land for the house of house site at the rate of Rs.60,000/- to be paid in 60  monthly  instalments commencing from 19.2.2010  to 19.1.2015  and  his branch office  at  Rayagada and  started  membership and collection through  the O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.1 & 2 assured to deliver  the proposed  land on completion of the period of  5(five) years  and regularly  collected  Rs.1,000/- per month from the complainant and issued receipt in  favour of the complainant.  The complainant  had paid  60 instalments for the purpose and suddenly the branch office of   the O.P.  at Rayagada  had closed without any notice to the complainant. During the month of January, 2015 the scheme  had completed but the promise made by the O.Ps remained un-executed. Inspite of repeated contact with the O.Ps from time to time the O.Ps are paid deaf ear and not  registered the plot  in favour of the complainant  instead of received  Rs.60,000/- from the complainant  on instalments basis. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps  refund  money a sum of Rs.60,000/- with bank interest  from the date of respective  deposit  till  realization and such other  relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

 

2.         On  being noticed the O.Ps filed joint written  version  through their learned counsel. The O.Ps  submitted  that  the contract between   the complainant and the company is in respect of sale of property but  not in respect of sale of any goods or services. The  complaint is not a complaint  within the scope of  the  C.P. Act, 1986. The material allegations of the complainant  are not correct and is hereby denied. The O.Ps prays the forum  to dismiss the complaint as the refund of advances paid by the consumers is now pending  before the competent authority appointed by the  Govt. and also pending before the Special court.

 

The O.Ps  appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  learned counsels for  the O.Ps   and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

            The  learned counsel  for the O.Ps. vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

3.            Regarding the contentions of the O.Ps  that the complaint petition  is not maintainable  in  this forum.  On perusal of the record it is revealed  that the O.Ps have offered house plots for sale  and the O.P. No.3  was assisting  the O.P. No. 1 & 2  in disposal of the said plots  by arranging  the customers regarding the contentions of the O.Ps. that the complaint petition  is not maintainable  in  this forum. On perusal of the  records  it   is revealed that  the O.Ps have  offered house plots for   sale and   in  disposal of the said plots by arranging the customers  through  appointing agents  by the O.Ps  in the  Rayagada town.  The O.Ps had  received  Rs.1,000/- per month  from  19.2.2010  to 19.1.2015  a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant  as per scheme.  The O.Ps have  admitted the fact of receipt of the amount of Rs.60,000/- in his written version. Thus the complainant has availed  the scheme on payment of consideration and as such when the said service he availed on such consideration he is a consumer within the definition of C.P. Act and the O.Ps are giving such service  for a valuable consideration and as such the service offered by the O.Ps are also clearly coming within the definition of the C.P. Act.

 

4.         The O.Ps  No. 1 & 2  in their written version  para 1.12 clearly  submitted that as on the date of filing of this complaint, SEBI, Mumbai directed this  O.P not to dispose of or alienate any of the properties/assets obtained directly or indirectly through money raised by  AGFEIPL vide its ex-parte interim order  No. WTM/SR/CIS/SRO/HLO/19/2/2015  DT. 5.2.2015. Further in para 1.13  the O.Ps submitted that subsequent to the above order, the Govt. of Andhra  Pradesh through its G.O Ms Nos. 23 Dt. 20^th. 2.2015 and GO Ms No. 73 Dt. 5^th. June, 2015 provisionally attached  the properties of this opposite party company and its associate companies situated in the States of Odisha, Andhra Praesh, Telangana and Karnataka in connection with the  refund of advances to the customers of this O.P and the list of customers and properties are now pending before the Special court i.e. District and Sessions Court, Eluru, West  Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.  The  case of the complainant for refund of advance is now the subject  matter pending  before the said Special court. Again the O.Ps  in para 4.7 clearly  mentioned  the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms No. 23 Dt.20.2.2015 and 73 Dtd.5.6.2015 attaching the properties of not only  the O.P company but also of the Agrigold Group with a view to liquidate the same and to refund the  advances to the customers of the company   including  to the  customers  to whom postdated cheques  are issued. The complainant is one among the same persons.   In para-5.1 the O.Ps  stated the CID of AP filed an affidavit in the designated court at Eluru, West  Godavari Districtr in respect of the properties covered   under  the above GOMs No. 23 of 20.2.2015 along with  the list of customers of the company with a prayer to confirm and attach the same for liquidation   by the Govt. to repay to the customers  together with the list of customers. The matter related to the amount of the complainant covered by the cases pending before CID of AP and SEBI, Mumbai which is  pending before the    Designated court.  In para 7.2   the O.Ps clearly  submitted  the refund of advances paid by the  customers is now  pending before the competent  authority appointed by the Govt. and also pending before the   special court.

 

5.            On  perusal of the  written version   we observed   in our opinion the proper procedure to be followed by the complainant  is to put forward their claims before the  competent authority appointed by the  Govt. of Andhra  Pradesh and Special Court  and  produce all the materials before him in substantiation of the claims put forward by the complainant.  We feel confident that the competent authority will go into the matter and if satisfied about the bonafides of the claims made by the  complainant he will promptly  make payments of the  amounts found due to the complainant.  The O.Ps are  also directed  to put forth  all papers of the complainant before the  competent authority  timely  and to intimate the up-to-date status to the complainant  from time to time.  .  The complainant is directed to contact the O.Ps at regular intervals to know the progress of his claim.

            In view of the aforesaid  ruling  of the  Special court we feel ourselves restricted to go into further  details of  adjudicating upon the merits of the complaint petition. 

            Accordingly with the above observation the case is disposed off. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

Pronounced on this             7^th.        Day    of         November,   2017.

 

 

                Member                                                                                               President