DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.02.2021.
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a blind senior citizen aged about 78 years. The O.P. was transacting earlier as Berhampur Municipality within the area of Berhampur Town which has been converted to Berhampur Municipal Corporation. The O.P. made a general circular to construct shop rooms under the integrated development of small and medium town schemes which was sanctioned by the appropriate authority and the Municipal council in its Resolution No. 16 dated 27.07.1998 resolved to allot the shop rooms to the private individuals and firms to facilitate to the people of Berhampur town and unemployed youth in license lease for a period of eleven months subject to renewal. In the said circular, the intending applicants were asked to deposit security deposits of different types for different areas. The prescribed application forms were made available in the office of the O.P. from 23.11.1998 to 08.12.1998. The complainant being without job and having no other sources of income and being a blind submitted the prescribed form for allotment of a shop room at Luchapada Road, Berhampur. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- only vide banker’s cheque bearing No.641749 dated 08.12.1998 drawn in State Bank of India, Berhampur. Earlier to the above, the complainant obtained the application form on depositing Rs.100/- in the office of the O.P. in Book No. 447 SL. No. 217 dated 04.12.1998. After submitting the security deposit of Rs.15,000/- with the O.P. the complainant made regular approach for allotment of the shop room in question. The office of the O.P assured the best service for allotment of a shop room on priority basis considering the old age of the complainant but it was never done. In the situation made regular contact by running to the office of the O.P. with help of another person to different officials. But all the time it was assured even for refund of the money so deposited for the purpose. Since all the efforts of the complainant became futile, the complainant gave a notice to the O.P. for refund of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest on dt.02.09.2016. The O.P. remain silent and did not initiated steps for refund of the hard money of a senior citizen. For the unfair trade practice of the O.P. the complainant suffered from harassments causing mental agony for which the complainant is entitled for exemplary compensation. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to refund Rs.1`5,000/- only alongwith interest @18% per month from the date of its deposit till payment, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the harassment and Rs.7500/- towards costs of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party. The O.P. appeared through his advocate but not filed written version, hence the O.P. was declared exparte on 13.08.2018.
4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit, written notes of argument.
5. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- in favour of O.P. only vide Bankers cheque bearing No. 641749 dated 08.12.1998 drawn in State Bank of India, Berhampur for allotment of a shop room at Luchapada Road Berhampur which was for commercial purpose under Berhampur Municipality. The complainant deposited security deposit on 08.12.1998 for allotment of a shop room. The complainant filed this case on 19.12.2017 after completion of 19 years which is barred by limitation as the same is not filed within two years from the cause of action arose following the law laid down in the citation of Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi in Vijaya Bansal versus Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Admn and another 2012(3) CPR 347 such as -: “Any relief can be claimed under C.P.Act, within two years from the date on which cause of action accrues”. In an another citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in Charanjit Lal versus John Deera Equipments Pvt. Ltd. through its Dy. Finance Controller & Anr. 2012 (3) CPR 299 such: - “Time barred complaint can not be allowed”. And also another citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in SKG Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. 2010(3) CPJ 260 such as Complaint maintainability- commercial space for office- Booking of six units by complainant a company engaged in the manufacturing of components, assemblies and hydraulic systems for agriculture and construction purpose-Booking not for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment by the complainant within the meaning of explanation appended to Section 2(1)(d)- The complainant not being a consumer complaint under the Act not legally maintainable and liable to be dismissed- It will be open to the complainant to seek refund of the amount paid etc. by filing suit before the competent Civil Court.
6. Considering the factual position of the case, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.P. and the complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before any other Commission/Court 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 23rd February 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the concerned parties free of cost and a copy of same is to be sent to the server of
