DATE OF DISPOSAL: 12.06.2019
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainants Bijoy Laxmi Mohapatra & Rasmi Das have filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of their grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainants are that being convinced by the attractive proposal of the O.Ps to avail 2000 sq.ft of residential plot by paying Rs.40,000/- through monthly scheme. Later the O.P. confirmed verbally the complainants about the availability of residential land scheme at Phulnakhara site situated between Bhubaneswar and Cuttack instead of at Bhubaneswar. The complainants convinced and agreed with this proposal of the O.P. and started the phase wise payments to the O.P. After payment of Rs.30,000/- only by each of the complainants, the O.Ps put pressure on the complainants to pay the rest as allotment of plots would be completed very shortly, which are very demanding in nature. Finding no other way, they collected the rest sum of loan basis from their known persons and relatives and deposited the sum of Rs.10,000/- only alongwith Rs.5,000/- only for proceeding expenses immediately without delay. After receiving the full and final amount of Rs.40,000/- only as agreed from the complainant for the allotment of land, the O.P. played hide and seek with them in delivering the possession of land. Whenever the complainants asked about the allotment date, the O.P. replied coolly about the procedure with different pleas. But side by side vehemently assured the complainants that they are rightful owners of the residential plots under the O.Ps scheme as they paid the full and final amount by the due period. With a lot of hope, the complainants waited for years and enquired about the land allotment procedure again and again. After a long period of waiting for years together, the complainants received letter from the O.P. on 121.04.2004 which reflects that they have been allotted with plot No. 74 and 75 on their names respectively. On the said letter the O.P. also made a charge to pay Rs.5,000/- by Bank Draft favoring Seven Hills Estates Ltd. payable at Bramhapur towards cost of sale deed, stamp paper, Registration cost and its ancillary expenses. The complainants also directed to send 2 copies of their present passport size photographs to be affixed to the Sale Deed and the registration records by the respective Registration Authority. The complainants without any delay complied the letter by sending the Bank Draft of Rs.5,000/- and passport size photographs as required. The complainants along with their families planned to built house immediately just after the registration and possession of land. They required registration deed of land to avail loan amount from different sources to fund the construction of the said house. The complainants again and again reminded about the registration of the plots in their names as quick as possible. Again the O.P. took different pleas on the course about the process of registration of the lands. The hopeless complainants asked their deposited money back. The complainants also spent a lot of money to call the O.P. to know about the status of the residential plots. The O.P. cheated the complainants, which is very obvious from these incidents although the O.P. assured the complainants about the delivering of the said residential lands in their favour. The O.P. called again the complainants and told them about the returning of the amount Rs.40,000/-only. When the complainants approached the O.P. later he vehemently declined to pay Rs.5000/- only which he took as procedural expenses. The helpless, desperate complainants agreed to receive the amount of Rs.40,000/- only instead of Rs.45,000/-only. The O.P. also agreed to pay it after 15 days. Again the complainants reminded the O.P. about the return of the amount of Rs.40,000/- only after the due dates. The O.P. played another game with a new trick to cheat the needy complainants. The O.P. again lured the complainants to invest their deposited money in a fixed deposit scheme, where the complainants can get their amount doubled after five years through proper procedure of law, i.e. the agreement between the complainants and the O.P. The complainants convinced and entered to an agreement with the O.P. to receive an amount of Rs.80,000/- only after five years, which is the double amount of Rs.40,000/- only. The O.P. and the complainants became the creditor and O.P. as loanee in the said instrument/agreement. The condition of the agreement which entitled the loanee, the O.P. to use money of the complainants to expand its commercial activities to run his business. The complainants after 5 years again forced to run after the O.P. for their due amount. The term and conditions of the said agreement completed just after 30th July 2009. The O.P. did not put any step to refund the deposited amount of the complainants till today. The O.P. has committed gross deficiency in service. At last the harassed complainants felt that they became the victim of the fraud and their trust had been betrayed by breach of contract by the O.P. They became bound to serve legal notice on dated 2nd May 2012 through registered post with AD. The O.P. received it but adamantly remained silent over it till today. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.80,000/- to each of the complainants along with 18% interest per annum , Rs.5000/- to each of the complainants alongwith 18% interest per annum, Rs.75,000/- to each of the complainants towards the mental harassment, Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the complainants towards the litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the complainant is neither lawful nor tenable under the provisions of the C.P.Act, 1986 hence liable to be dismissed in limine. The complaint is barred by limitations. The loan agreement was signed on 31.07.2004 and the loan period expired on 31.07.2009 but the present complaint is filed on 17.01.2013 i.e. after lapse of four year of the cause of action. The loan agreement filed at annexure are not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The Opposite Party do not agreement para-3 of the complaint regarding any Manas Padhy as an agent. The spot receipts annexed with the complaint are herewith denied/refuted by this answering O.P. It has been categorically stated that the company shall not be responsible for cash transaction. It is not known to the O.P. as to who receive the cash is in question. The annexure signed by the Sudhir Padhi as Manager, Customer Care is totally denied since no such letter is ever issued with the knowledge of this O.P. Moreover the complainant enters to agreement on commercial activity. Since there are disputed facts regarding receipt of money by spot receipt issue of letter without date, seal of the O.P. this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which is liable to dismiss in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of hearing both parties are present. We heard arguments from both sides at length. We have gone through the case record and also perused the written version, written argument and materials available on the case record. It reveals that the complainants have paid money to O.P. for allotment of different plots in their favour but the O.P. fails to allot plots in favour of the complainants as such the complainants have filed this complaint against the O.P. Further it reveals that the complainants have no common interest in this case. Though both the complainants are sisters but they have paid money for getting different plots and they have also deposited the money separately and have also executed the agreements in their individual capacity.
5. Law is well settled in Section 12 (c) of Consumer Protection Act that in case of more than one complainant/consumer having the same interest, the consumer complaint needs to be filed by the permission of the District Forum. But in this case the complainants have not done so.
6. On foregoing discussion, it is clearly established that this complaint is not maintainable as per consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainants’ complaint is dismissed against O.P. without cost and the complainants are at liberty to file their case in any Forum for redressal of their grievances and they may avail the benefit U/S 14 of the Limitation Act in the best interest of justice.
The order is pronounced on this day of 12th June 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
