Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          None appears on behalf of the appellant. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Sirsho Das Gupta files power on behalf of respondent.

          Heard the Ld. Advocate for the respondent.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order dt. 28.12.2020 in CC/357/2020 passed by A.C.D.R.C Rajarhat New Town dismissing the complaint case the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal.

          The complainant filed the complaint case alleging that being induced by false promises, commitment and advertisement by the OPs the complainant paid Rs. 10,85,000/- for some plots. But the OPs nos. 1, 2 & 3 did not fulfil their promises. So the complainant filed this case with a prayer for refund of deposit of Rs. 10,85,000/- with  compound interest @ 12% p.a. along with prayer for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-. In the impugned judgment the Ld. Forum below 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 the paid amount. 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 by the impugned order.

          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/35/2021 is dismissed on merit. Impugned order is upheld.  There shall be no order as to the costs.