Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/45/2018

Ratan Parida - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Officer , Dhenkanal Muncipality - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                                                            C.C.Case No. 45 of 2018

Ratan Parida, aged about 32 years

Son of Rabindra Nath Parida,

At: Hata Road, PO: Dhenkanal  R.S,

P.S: Town, Dist: Dhenkanal                                      …………..Petitioner

 

                                                                                Versus

Dhenkanal Municipality

Represented through Executive Officer,

Dhenkanal Municipality,

At/Po/P.S/Dist: Dhenkanal                                    …………….Opp. Party

Present:  Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                  Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

Counsel:  For the complainant:  Suvasish Mishra and Associates

                 For the Opp. Party:      Bhabagrahi Panda & Associates

 

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

                In this complaint petition the petitioner alleges deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Party for not  refunding his security deposit inspite of repeated applications  which was deposited for allotment of a shop room near the proposed Bus Stand at Mahisapat and praying therein for a direction to the Opp. Party to refund the security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till it is actually paid to him as the Opp. Party has failed to provide him the shop room even after a long period.

1)     Brief fact leading to the case is that on the basis of an advertisement floated by the Opp. Party on 19.7.2006 vide office order No. 1940 dated 19.7.2006 to provide shop room to the prospective applicants  near the proposed new Bus stand at Mahisapat, Dhenkanal, the complainant made an application by depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide Money Receipt No. 54254 dated 18.8.2006 to get a shop room in the ground floor within the stipulated period dated 15.9.2006.  Thereafter the complainant noticed that the Opp. Party failed to construct the proposed shop room for which after lapse of two years on 5.6.2008 requested the Opp. Party to refund his security deposit as they have failed to construct and allot the shop room in his favour.  Thereafter on various other dates the complainant has made written applications and finally on 12.4.2017 issued a legal notice for refund of the amount but no steps were taken by the Opp. Party to refund his security deposit.  So being harassed by such conduct of the Opp. Party the petitioner filed the present case with a prayer for refund of his security deposit  with 18% interest from the year 2006 till 2018 and for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and suffering and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards postal expenses and cost of pleader notice.

2)     Notice was issued by this Forum  to the Opp. Party and the Opp. Party appeared through their Advocate, but they preferred not to file any written version  or challenged the case of the complainant in any manner.  Since the  parties continuously remained absent the case was posted for argument to 25.9.2018 and finally the case was posted to 4.12.2018 for argument after three interim adjournments and on 4.12.2018 since both the parties remained absent the case has been posted for orders on merit.

3)        That the petitioner in support of his case has filed photo copy of the advertisement No. 1940 dated 19.7.2006 in the news paper, copy of the application form dated 18.8.2006, photo copy of the money receipt No. 54254 dated 18.8.2006 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by the Opp. Party, copy of the application dated 22.12.2017 of the complainant addressed to Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal, copy of the application dated 12.11.2007, 5.6.2008, 10.6.2015, 13.3.2007 and 10.8.2008.

4)      It is settled principle of law that  where the Opp. Party appears  but does  not  challenge or filed written version in his favour it is deemed that the Opp. Party has admitted the allegations advanced against him by the petitioner. Therefore,   the allegations made by the complainant stands unchallenged.

5      On perusal of documents filed by the complainant it is seen that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 18.8.2006 vide money receipt No. 54254 for Rs. 25,000/-  issued by Executive Officer, Dhenkanal Municipality.  So also it is seen from the advertisement published in the News paper that  there was a  Public Advertisement” for allotment of proposed shop rooms on the prescribed rate as mentioned in the advertisement.  It is also seen from the advertisement that the date of application was from 1.8.2006 to 15.9.2006.  It is also seen from the copy of application that the petitioner has applied on 18.8.2006.  So it is clear that the complainant  has made the application within the time frame fixed by the Opp. Party and has deposited the first installment of Rs. 25,000/- specified by the O.P within the due date and there is no fault or error on the part of the complainant.  On the other hand when no construction was noticed even after two years of waiting the complainant has made several correspondences with the Opp. Party and was continuously in touch with the O.P to get back his money.  But the Opp. Party neither refunded his deposited amount nor provided him with the proposed shop room for which we have no other alternative but to hold that the Opp. Party has caused deficiency in service and has also practised unfair trade practice  in the instant case.   By withholding the money of the complainant for a pretty long time he has been mentally tortured and severe harassment has been caused to him and the O.P is liable for causing such harassment.  Since a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and harassment is made out against the Opp. Party , hence the order.

                                                                                   ORDER

                         In the result, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opp. Party and the Opp. Party is made liable for causing deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment to the petitioner.  The Opp. Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the petitioner  with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till it is actually refunded to him.  The Opp. Party is further  burdened with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-  towards cost of the litigation.  The order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

                Pronounced in the open Forum on this  7^th day of December-2018.

 

                (Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik)                                                  (Sri Purna Chandra Mishra)

                          President                                                                                   Member