Orissa

Rayagada

CC/32/2021

Sri Majhi Gouro Prasad Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Unique Infra Developers 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.     32      / 2021.                              Date.       27   . 8    . 2021

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

Sri  Majhi Gouri   Prasad Mishra,  S/O: Surya Narayana  Mishra,  At/Po:Tikiri, Dist: Rayagada.      (Odisha). 765  001                                                                                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Unique Infra-developers Ltd., Regd. Office,Near  Neharu Park,  Hillpatna, Berhampur-05, (Odisha).

2. Sri  Bimaleswara Patra,  S/O: Prahalad  Patra,  Vill: Mundaga, Po:Podapadi, Via:Tikiri, Dist: Rayagada.                                                                                        … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps.:- Set exparte...

                                                          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 for non allotment of plot. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under                                                           

That  the  O.Ps  agent alluring   the complainant  at his residence and  received  Rs.500/-  on Dt.31.08.2010  for  allotment  of plot.  In turn   he   had issued   receipt.  Again  the agent of the O.Ps had taken money  from the complainant  but  had not issued  money receipt.

The complainant complained the matter to the  O.Ps. from time to time  over phone  but the O.Ps are turned deaf ear to his request. Inspite of repeated  approach   to the O.Ps for allotment of plots  but the O.Ps paid deaf ear.     Again  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  the price taken for allotment of plot  with  interest and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  neither entering in to appear before the District Commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 7 (Seven) months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps  are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps.  were  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit  against the O.Ps.

          Heard  arguments from the   complainant  at length..   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by     the   complainant..

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 a  sum of Rs.500/- on Dt.31.8.2010 for allotment of plot (copies of the  money receipt is available  in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

          The  main grievance of the complainant  was  that the O.Ps agent had received  further money  but had   not issued  money receipt  and till date no  correspondence  made by the O.Ps  for  allotment  of plots.  Hence  this C.C. case  filed by the  complainant before the  District  Commission.

The OPs despite receiving notice from this Commission  are failed to render service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. as provisions laid down in  the   C.P.Act.

During the course of exparte hearing the complainant  put forth the required papers  before this District  Commission  and  marked  as Annexures.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the commission   whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps   for non allotment   plot  in  favour of the complainant  after receipt of the money  from the  complainant.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the District  Commission  claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable.

              We observed  after booking  the complainant had contacted to the O.Ps from time to time over phone but no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring to allot  plots. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that all the parties  are jointly and severally liable  to refund  the  deposited  amount  with  interest.

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

                                                            ORDER.

In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps

            The O.Ps. are  ordered to  pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees  five thousand)only  to the complainant  towards  compensation within in one month   from the date of  receipt  of this order.  Parties  are left  to bear their  own cost.

.           We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.P. directing  him to stop such a practice  forthwith and not to repeat in future. 

            The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty  to take further  proceedings U/S- 71 & 72  of the C.P. Act, 2019. Service the copies of the order to the parties.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this             27 th.   day     of          August                , 2021.

 

                                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT