Orissa

Rayagada

CC/20/2020

Pravakar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Kumar Naidu, S/o: V.M Adinarayana - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__20_______/2020                                      Date.   18     .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

                     Sri  Pravakar  Mishra ,Rayagada  and   17  others..                                                                                                                                                            …. Complainants.

Versus.

1.Sri  Vijaya Kumar Naidu, S/o: Late  Adinarayana,  Bank Colony,  Ist.lane,  Rayagada.

2.Sri  M  Dasaratha Rama Rao, S/o: Late  Adinarayana , At: Rayagada College,  Road,  Rayagada.

3. The Executive  Officer, Rayagada  Muncipalty...…..Opp.Parties

.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri   K.K.Thakar, Advocate,Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.1:- In person.

For the O.P No.2 :- Sri  Y.Madhu, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.3 :- Set exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non  gift the road  and  vacant  space   to the  O.P.  No.3 (Municipality)  inter alia  non   approve the layout   plan  from  the O.P.  No.3(Municipality)  for which  the complainants  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.  1  & 2  put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.  1  & 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No.  1  & 2. Hence the O.P No.1  & 2  prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.P No.3   neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3 .  Observing lapses of around  18 months    for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act,  going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.3. The action of the O.P No.3   is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.P. No.3     set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act,.

Heard  the case and  arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                               

        FINDINGS..

Undisputedly  the  O.P. No.1 & 2 are brothers.  Undisputedly   Land covering plot No. 43, Khata No. 496 and plot No. 43/658, Khata  No. 62/363 to an extent of Ac. 8.00 of Tumbiguda mouza stands  recorded   in the names of the O.P No. 1 & 2.  Undisputedly  out of  8.00 Ac. land  the O.P No.1 & 2  had sold jointly  at about   Ac. 3.25 to different parties  through  Sri B.K.Boxipatra and Sri P.K.Panigrahi and Late Purna  Chandra  Rath. Undisputedly  the O.Ps 1 & 2 had applied to the S.P.A, Rayagada for approval of layout plans towards  sold plots  along with some remaining   portion of  out land.  Undisputedly the S.P.A., Rayagada had approved the  plans  vide Lr.  No. 117 Dt. 31.1.1998 and No.  524  Dt. 18.5.1998.

The  O.Ps No. 2  in  their written version submitted that they are ready to deposit the requisite fees, perform all necessary acts and willing to gift  their share of land  for laying  of roads  and site for public utility  for approval of the lay out plan Dated. 5.10.2007.

The contention of the O.Ps 1 & 2 are that  the contents of the complaint  disclose that the O.Ps committed  breach of contract  and therefore  the complainants  ought  to have approached  a Civil Court  for redressal and the Consumer Commission ought not  to have  entertained  the complaint and thus  attacked the jurisdiction of the  Consumer  Commission in entertaining the complaint.

In several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  of India  and Hon’ble  National Commission  where in observed “That the development of land for  the purpose of selling it as plots and house sites  after duly adding   value by way of providing infrastructure, obtaining layouts  and other permissions from the  local Govt. etc.  constitutes  by itself a kind  of service and in that view of the  matter when a person  purchases  a plot from the  developer he not only  purchased the plot but also the service associated with it. 

          It is held and reported in CPJ- 2008(3) page No.  48  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the case  Fakir Chand Gulati  Vrs. Uppal Agencies Pvt.Ltd.   where in observed  “Since the complainant purchased a plot from the  O.P/developer he comes within the meaning of  a ‘Consumer’. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in batch of writ petition Nos. 28246  of 2009 etc. vide orders dated. 13.8.2010  where in observed  “That consumer commission  do not suffer  lack of jurisdiction   to entertain  complaints in such   matter”.  Therefore, the contention of the O.Ps 1 & 2  on the point of jurisdiction  and also that the complainant  is not a consumer  does not hold any water  and as such  it is decided against the O.Ps.

          The  O.Ps 1 & 2 has been collecting the amounts  towards development  charges as well as registration charges  along with  sale consideration.

          Having floated the venture,  it was the duty of the O.P. 1 & 2 to take all necessary sanctions and clearances before the  plots were offered for sale to the public .

          In the instant case the complainants  are paid the entire sale consideration  and also the development  charges as agreed. 

For better appreciation this commission  relied citations which are mentioned here.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

            Again it  is held and reported in  SCC  1994 (1) page No. 243 in the case of Lucknow Development authority  Vrs. M.K.Gupta where in the Hon’ble Apex Court observed “Consumer and Service  under the C.P. Act, 1986 that the provisions of the Act must be liberally interpreted in favour of the consumers as the enactment in question was beneficial piece of legislation while examining the meaning of the term Consumer and service.”

That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of his legitmate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which a consumer  is eligible   are  entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.  In most of the similar  cases  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “Negligence  by  public authorities cannot be paradoned”. They should be made responsible  for the compensation  to a consumer undertaken harassment  on  account of  their behaviour.

The  O.Ps  1 & 2  had all along given false assurances to the complainants  and action on the false assurances, the complainants did not initiate the civil action for the purpose  of recovery  of the deposited amount.     The complainants acted on the assurances given by  the  Opposite  parties 1 & 2.  Because  of false assurance, complainants were  little bit slow and  avoided court   litigation.  Under the circumstances, blame can not be foisted on the   complainants.  The complainants had pardonable excuse.  Therefore  the delay condoned  in the present case..

The preliminary objection regarding maintainability, jurisdiction  of the commission  which are made objection by way of  written version  by the O.Ps  in  the present  case before the commission is rejected. But  in the foregoing  circumstances  & with the  above observation  it appears just and proper being this is a welfare legislation to decide the matter  the following  orders  passed for the best  interest  of justice.

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

                           

ORDER.

                In  resultant  the   complaint petition  is allowed  in part   against  the O.Ps.

            The O.P. No.1  and O.P. No.2   are directed    to   execute  a  registered  gift  deed    i.e.  road  and  vacant  space  of  Tumbiguda Mouza    in favour of the   Municipality, Rayagada and hand over the  original  gift  deed  to the  O.P.  No.3 (Municipality)   within one month.

            The   O.P. No.1  and O.P. No.2   are  further  directed    to approve the layout   plan  from  the O.P.  No.3(Municipality) .

            The O.P. No.3 (Municipality, Rayagada)  to  approve the layout plan  within 30 days  after receipt  of  documents and necessary fees from the  O.P. No.1 & 2

            Parties  are left  to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties   as per rule..

 

Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on  18 th.   day  of       December,, 2021.

 

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT