Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.03.2017
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- ( vide annexure – A) along with 18% interest till its realisation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. Three lack Fifty Thousand only ) for mental torture and harassment.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had booked a plot on 18.05.2014 with opposite party after paying Rs. 1,00,000/- vide annexure – A. at the time of booking the complainant was assured that the said plot was near Hero Honda Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana but the complainant has discovered later on that the said plot was far from assured site and situated in Alwar, Rajesthan. The aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant vide cheque on 18.05.2014 bearing cheque no. 001162 H.D.F.C. Bank, Anisabad Branch for above plot no. 127. As the plot in question was not as per assurance of the opposite party hence the complainant lost interest in purchasing the aforesaid plot.
The grievance of the complainant is that as he could not get the plot of his choice he requested to refund the said amount paid to opposite party vide annexure – A after sending the legal notice which has been marked as annexure – C.
The aforesaid notice was replied by opposite party vide annexure – D avoiding the refund and requesting the complainant to make timely payment of the remaining amount.
The complainant has filed this complaint petition for redressal of his grievance on the ground that the conduct of opposite party comes under the unfair trade.
No one appeared on behalf of opposite party despite registered notice and as such vide order dated 12.08.2015 the Tamila was declared valid.
From bare perusal of complaint case it transpires that the complainant had entered in agreement with opposite party for purchasing the land being plot no. 127 but as the plot which was being allotted by opposite party was not the same plot hence he refused to purchase the same and refund the amount deposited with opposite party.
It seems that there is agreement between complainant and opposite party for purchasing the plot which appears to be purely civil in nature for which remedy lies in court of competent jurisdiction.
In our opinion such type of cases cannot be decided by District Forum under Consumer Protection Act.
However as the complainant had asserted and filed a document showing the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to opposite hence he has right to recovered his amount in accordance with the law. Unfortunately such facts cannot be decided by us.
For the discussion made above we dispose off this application with liberty to the complainant to file appropriate application in the court of competent jurisdiction or before any Tribunal, Forum etc. in accordance with law.
Member President
