Orissa

Rayagada

CC/100/2018

Smt. S.Sadhana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Partner Sri Lakshmu NAIDU & Sri Gangu Naidu - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 100/ 2018.                                            Date.   10  .    9   . 2019

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt. S.Sadhana,  W/O: S.Ramesh, Resident of Railway colony, Besides GDC Factory,  Po/ DIST: Rayagada, State:  Odisha,                                                                                                                 .…..Complainant.

Versus.

The Managing  Director, Sri Lakshmi Naidu and Sri Gangu Naidu, Sri Sai Real Estates, Vidya Nagar, Near RTC Complex, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District, State:Andhrapradesh.                                                                  .…..Opp.  Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  D.  Ravi  Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the  O.Ps.:- Set exparte..

                                                                                               

.                                                           JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non execute the sale deed  in favour of the complainant after receipt of  amount on installment basis  inter alia   expire of installment date   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

This forum sent notice to the  O.Ps  in  their  detail   address by Regd. Post,  but the above   Regd. Letter  returned back  as revealed from the postal  remark  “Addressee left”.   The  above  action of the O.Ps   confirmed the fact that  they have managed to return the same   with an endorsement   postal remarks  “Addressee left” and refused to receive the same.  Proclamation  under  Order-5,  rule-20 of CPC  was prayed  by  petitioner and  a paper publication was made  on Dt. 06.08.2019  in ‘ ANDHRAJYOTHI ‘ daily  Telugu  News paper  in  page  No. 5. Hence  service is deemed  to be sufficient. The statutary period of  filing of written version is over.   Ultimately the  O.Ps  are set  exparte   for not filing the Written version  within the time nor appearing in single  dates,  we have no alternative but to resort to Section-13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

On  perusal of the record  it is revealed  that the O.P  had   floated a housing plot scheme At: Parvatipuram,  Near RTC Complex, Vidya nagar,  Dist: Vizianagaram, State: Andhra Pradesh   in the name and style  of     Sri  Sai Real Estates, for selling  of  Residential  lay out plots to the parties 15 x 50 feet  plot booking No.942.  Being impressed by the scheme  the complainant  had   deposited  amount  on installment  basis  @ Rs. 700/- per month  65 (sixty five) installments  amounting to Rs. 45,500/- (copies of the  money receipts  are  in the which is marked as  Annexure- 1 to 16).

            The main grievance of the complainant  is that  inspite of  payment  towards   sale consideration   as per the scheme,  the O.P. did not turn up to make registration of the house sites  in favour of  complainant  nor the O.P refunded  the amount which was paid . Hence  the C.C. complaint.

During the exparte  hearing the complainant examined himself and filed Broucher  which  was  issued  in favour of the complainant (copies of the same is in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I7).  Further the complainant  proved the payment  of the  money  a sum of Rs. 45,500/-   to the O.Ps  in shape cash  which were mentioned  in the money receipt..

            The above receipts   which are In the file  marked as Annexure-1 to 16. It  has been  revealed that the  complainant had paid   total amount a sum of Rs.45,500.00 according to agreement and receipts. 

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.  

Now we come to the other aspects of the complaint. There is no dispute about the payment  made by the complainant  in  installments as per the receipts issued  by the O.P. and as per agreement.  The complainant  therefore complied the payments as per the terms and conditions stipulated  in the Broacher.

But  thereafter the O.P. did not make registration  of the house site plot in the name of the complainant. On perusal of the  record  this forum  found that the O.P. had floated his scheme without  obtaining  land  from the  parties  which is unlawful.  Undoubtedly  breach of  agreement and whimsical act of the O.P.  is within the ambit of  Section   2(1)(4)(1)(v) and 2(1)(r) (3)(b) of the C.P. Act which  is related to unfair  trade practice and which is corresponding  to section  36 A of the Monopoly Restricted  Trade Practice M.R.T.P. act of 1969 under part- A of Chapter-III of the said act.

This forum   further hold that the  non execution of sale deed  in favour of the complainant  by the O.P.   of the  allotted  plot in terms of agreement is a deficiency  in service. As per the terms of the agreement and on payment of  the  full  consideration  as per the  Brochure of the agreement  the O.Ps are bound to take  steps for execution  and registration of the sale deed.   We found in the present case in hand there is is a lapse in the service agreed   to be rendered  by the O.Ps who are bound to  perform their obligation  as agreed to.  The failure of the O.Ps in handing over possession of the plot must have caused  pain and  suffering to the complainant for a long period.

The complainant has been unduly harassed by the  O.Ps for their  utter callousness and in view  of  deficiency  in service  by the O.Ps.  In our view the interest of justice would be met  if   without receiving any amount from the complainant   the O.P.   execute  the sale  deed  of the above plot  in favour of the complainant.

             In  the absence  of any  denial  by  way  of  written  version  from the side  of the O.Ps. it is  presumed that the allegations  levelled against   the  O.Ps. deemed  to have  been  proved.    The  complainant   had  paid  the  amount   for the good service .  When the O.Ps  have failed to  give such service  as per  Brochure  for   which  the O.Ps  have   received   the  amount.   It is  deemed that the  O.Ps   were   callous to the allegations  and it amounts  to deficiency  of service.

When contract  has   been  broken   or breached the complainant  who  suffers  from the said  breach is entitled   to execution  of sale  deed  or   to receive the deposited money  with  up-to-date  bank  interest from the O.P    who have broken  the  contract, Compensation  for any  loss or damage caused to him  thereby,  which  naturally arose in the usual course  of things  for  such breach  or which the party  knew when they have  made the  contract ought to considered.

On  perusal of the papers  filed  by the complainant it is revealed that  the actions of the  O.P.     is unfair trade practice in order to grab the money of the complainant, which amounts of cheating and as such the OP     deserves punishment. The complainant unnecessarily put to undue harassment, mental agony, heavy loss and the OPs are liable to pay compensation for damages to the complainant  and the complainant is to be adequately compensated by the O.Ps.

Hence this forum found that the complainant is  a consumer within the definition of the C.P. Act, the breach of contract  even after receipt of money in advance  from the complainant. We find there is    deficiency  of  service  and  negligence on the part of the O.P.  and  as such  the complainant   is  entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.

We observed   the  complainant feel the O.Ps   service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.P   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers. 

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

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed in part on exparte..

            The O.P. is directed to  execute the sale deed  of plot in favour of the complainant specially  near RTC complex, Parvatipuram  site measuring 15 x 50 feets  within a period of 2 months for which the complainant has already made payments and no further charges shall be levied except the charges  which are required to be paid  in terms of execution of sale deed of the  plot  and the formalities relevant to that, failing which  refund  the deposited amount by the complainant according to brochure and receipts along  with interest   @  Rs. 18%  per annum   from the  respective  date of  deposit  till  realization  inter  alia to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            Copies of the order  be  served to the parties  as per rule  free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.              

Pronounced on this           10th.     Day of  September,  2019.

 

 

Member.                                 Member.                                             President