Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          None appears for either of the parties.

          The appellant did not pay cost of Rs. 200/- in terms of order no. 4 dt. 07.06.2022. The cost was imposed for allowing the application for condonation of delay.

          However, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dt. 28.12.2020 in CC/358/2020 passed by A.C.D.R.C Rajarhat New Town dismissing the complaint case the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal.

          The allegation of the appellant/complainant is that the complainant invested some amount to a  fraud company for getting some service but the said company after receiving the said amount did not provide any service to the complainant. So, the complainant filed this petition for deficiency in service. The Ld. Commission below in para no. 3 of the impugned judgment observed “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 reason 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 the complaint the complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 401839/- along with compound interest of 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

 But the complainant put her signature in the agreement in spite of knowing the aforementioned clause of forfeiture. So, the Ld. Commission below observed that the complainant was barred to claim the refund of the paid amount in view of the principle of estoppel. So, the Ld. Commission below came to the conclusion that the complaint case could not be admitted and it was not maintainable and it pleased to dismiss the same without any admission. However, the appellant/ complainant was directed to make separate application before the competent authority.

          Now, the question is that whether the impugned order can be sustained.

          On careful scrutiny of the impugned order and in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

          Accordingly, the Appeal being no. A/36/2021 is dismissed on merit. Impugned order is upheld.  There shall be no order as to the costs.