Orissa

Rayagada

CC/29/2021

Sandhyarani Padhy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Deservt Gold India Irrigation Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     29      / 2021.                              Date.   27       . 8. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Sandhya Rani  Padhy,  C/O:  Sri N. Padhy,  New Colony,  Po/Dist: Rayagada.      (Odisha). 765  001                                                                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

The Manager,  Desert  Gold India  Irrrigation  Ltd., Regd. Office-157, Aarey  Road, Goregaon(West)  Bombay – 400062, State :Moharashtra.

,                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps  :- Written version sent through  postal  service..

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps towards  non  receipt  of benefits  from   Teak wood  certificate bearing certificate  No.7448. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

                That  the  complainant had  Invested/deposited  Rs.1,000/- on Dt.01.03.1993  in the above  company  i.e. O.P.  in turn the O.P. had issued Teal Wood Certificate bearing  No.7448  and Regd. Folio No. S001381. But till date  no  correspondence made  by the O.P.  with the complainant  and  had not received  any benefits from the above certificate. Hence this C.C. case filed by the complainant and prays by the  complainant  direct  the O.P.  to  give benefits    as per terms and conditions  applicable to the teakwood scheme.

          On being notice the O.P  had sent  written version through postal service. In the written version  the O.P. had  raised  jurisdiction  of this commission.  Hence the O.Ps prays the Commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This District Commission  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

Undisputedly   the complainant  had  deposited  Rs.1,000/- (Rupees  one thousand)only  on Dt. Dt.01.03.1993  in the above  company  i.e. O.P.  in turn the O.P. had issued Teak Wood Certificate bearing  No.7448  and Regd. Folio No. S001381(copies of the teak wood certificate is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

The main grievance of the complainant  is that  due to  non receipt of response  and benefits  from the Teak wood certificate   from the O.P. he has filed this C.C. case before the Commission. Hence this C.C.  case.

The O.P. in  their written version contended  that  the terms and conditions mutually agreed between  the respondent and the complainant  via the teak wood  certificate in which the terms  conditions are read as an except ‘Subject to jurisdiction of the courts in the city  of Bombay, Maharashtra, India. Considering the said point of terms and condition the O.P  pray the commission to dismiss the complaint petition for the best interest of justice.

The  O.Ps have every right to earn profit from its customer, but it should  be reasonable or  acceptable one.  The O.Ps should not be a commercial  business centres for profiteering  from the exploitation of such type customer.

In this connection this  District Commission   relied  citations of the apex  court which  are mentioned here uinder.

It is held  and reported  in Current Consumer  Case 2005  page  No.187 (SS)  where in the Hon’ble  State C.D.R.Commission,Karnataka  observed  “Consumer Protection  Act,1986  - Section -3- clause in agreement providing  for restricting the  jurisdiction to resolve   dispute between the parties – held  any agreement restricting jurisdiction to a particular  court constituted  under   General / Common Law  can not be extended to  Consumer Forums as they are not courts constituted under Civil  Procedure  Code  but only  quasi  judicial   authorities-revision petition  dismissed.”

The C.P.Act  is a piece   of  legislation intends to protect the consumer who suffered injury  at the hands of the other  party.  If the jurisdiction  to entertain  a complaint  is restricted to  Mumbai Courts in respect  of  the  transactions between a consumer in   Odisha and the O.P.  necessarily all consumers  in  Odisha  are required to  go  to  Mumbai  for redressal  before the  State Commission of    Mumbai  of  forums  established  in the  State of   Moharashtra.

The  apex  courts  view that  any agreement  entered into between    the parties restricting jurisdiction to a particular  court constituted  under General/common law can not be extended  to the  District   Forum, State Commission and National Commission as the District Forum or State Commission or National Commission are not the  courts constituted  under the Civil procedure code and they  are only the quasi judicial authorities.

In the  aforesaid  circumstances,  despite repeated deficiencies in rendering  service and making mis-representations to the  complainant  by alluring  them   had  taken  money   and  till date  the complainant not entitled  any benefits  from the O.Ps is a   gross  negligence on the part of the  O.Ps  and liable for payment of compensation  to the complainant.

From the above discussion  we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where the compensation needs to be  entitled by the  complainant. So, while partly allowing this case we order  that the  O.Ps shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards mental agony, damages. We feel that ends  of justice would be met if  O.Ps compensated with the amount awarded by us.

In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances inter alia material on record this District Commision  considered view that the complainant is entitled  to get Rs.10,000/-  in the instant case.

The preliminary objection regarding maintainability, Territorial jurisdiction  of the District Commission  which are made objection by way of  written version  by the O.Ps  in  the present  case before the Commission     is rejected. But  in the foregoing  circumstances  & with the  above observation  it appears just and proper being this is a welfare legislation to decide the matter  the following  orders  passed for the best  interest  of justice.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliance Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.              

                                                                                     ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition stands  allowed  in  part  on contest against the O.Ps 

The  O.P. is  directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees  ten thousand)only  to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The O.Ps are directed to comply  the above  order  within 3(three) months  from the date of receipt of this order.   Copy  be served to the parties.

            .Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this      27th.   Day of    August,  2021.

Member.                                                             President