The ld. Counsel for the Complainant is present. Today is fixed for admission hearing of this compliant. During hearing of this compliant on the point of its admissibility it is seen by us that fraudulent monetary transaction has been made by and between the Complainant and the OPs. From several documents as annexed by the Complainant it is revealed that the Complainant invested some amount to a ‘FRAUD’ Company for getting some service. But the said Company after receipt of the said amount did not provide any service to the Complainant and due to this reason  alleging deficiency in service against the OPs this complaint is initiated by the Complainant before this Ld. Commission.

There are several Rulings passed by the Upper Courts/Commission wherein it is observed that the matter related to fraud/cheating is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore on this score alone the present compliant cannot be maintainable before this Ld. District Commission.

Moreover from the running page no-41 of the Annexure-‘A’ as filed by the Complainant, it is evident in the clause no-11 that “In the event applicant for any reasons decides not to proceed towards finalization of the sale of plot then the earnest money paid by the applicant will be forfeited and this application for offer for sale of plot would automatically be cancelled and revoked without any notice to the applicant.”

In the prayer portion of this compliant the Complainant has prayed for refund of the paid mount, but as the Complainant put her signature in the agreement  inspite of knowing the aforementioned then in our view the Complainant is barred to claim the refund of the paid amount in view of the Principle of Estoppels.

In support of her contention the Complainant has placed her reliance on two judgments. We have carefully perused those judgments. The first judgment passed by the Ld. District Commission (DCDRF) Murshidabad, which cannot be implemented in this compliant filed before this Ld. District Commission, Rajarhat. The second Judgment is not applicable in the case in hand as the same was passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Delhi, where the dispute was related to the territorial jurisdiction of the compliant.

In view of the above we are of the opinion that the present compliant being no-CC/357/2020 is dismissed being not maintainable and without being admitted. There is no order as to cost. However the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the competent Court of Law for redressal of her grievance, if not barred otherwise.

   As the complaint is not admitted hence the Complainant is entitled to get return of the copy of the complaint and copies of the documents as filed by her at the time of filing this compliant from the competent authority of this Ld. Commission and for this purpose the Complainant is directed to make a separate application before the said authority. The competent authority is hereby directed to take step so that the Complainant can get return of the copy of the compliant and other related documents without any further delay in accordance with law.

Let plain copy of this final order be given to the Complainants free of cost as per the CPR.

 Dictated and Corrected by

Hon’ble Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Das

President