Orissa

Rayagada

CC/80/2021

Sri Laxmi Narayan Pallo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prakruti Builders - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 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.80/2021                                      Date. 11.11.2021

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

 

Sri Laxmi Narayan  Pallo,  S/o: Late  Jay Krishna  Pallo,  At:Brahmin Street,  Po/Dist: Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha).               …. Complainant.

Versus.

The Manager,  Prakruti  Builders, No.3, 3^rd. floor, Rednam Regency, Near Diamond Park,  Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam- 530016. Cell No.9705623456                                                 …..  Opposite  parties.

 

For the Complainant Self..

For the  O.Ps Sri Rambabu Bachina, Advocate, Vizag.

 

JUDGEMENT.

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non refund  of balance deposited  amount   a sum of Rs.88,000.00   towards  non allotment   of Flat  for which  the complainant   sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the  the case  are summarized here under.

That being  tempted by the attractive advertisements and several approaches made by the  O.P. and his agents the complainant became a member  for  purchase of Flat  number No. 401  launched by the  above named O.P.  in the year  2019 under the name and style “Prakruti   Avenues Pvt. Ltd.”.  The  complainant became a member  of the said scheme  for purchase of Flat  No. 401.  Accordingly the  O.P.  had also entered in to an  agreement with the  complainant  for  1,075 Sqft    flat  area   @ Rs.2,500.00  per  Sqft.  Rs.26,87,500/-  plus   Rs.1,50,000/- towards  Amenties   grand  total Rs.26,89,000.00  towards  flat  price.

Accordingly the complainant  used to pay  amount to the O.P. in shape of cash  a sum  of Rs.1,00,000.00    and obtained receipt  from the O.P.  Then  the complainant had paid  balance  amounts  in different date  and   deposited  the amount   in the  Bank  account   No. 6068692976  of the  O.P. i.e. Indian Bank, Vizag. 

Date.	Transfer the amount  to the  bank account of the O.P.	Amount.
25.2.2019	By  Cash.	Rs.1,00,000.00
25.2.2019	Indian Bank account  No. 6068692976	Rs.3,00,000.00
31.7.2019	Indian Bank account  No. 6068692976	Rs.2,00,000.00
14.10.2019	Indian Bank account  No. 6068692976	Rs.    80,000.00
8.5.2020	Indian Bank account  No. 6068692976	Rs.2,00,000.00
	Total.	Rs.8,80,000.00

Thar the complainant had deposited  total Rs.8,80,000.00  towards  purchase  of  Flat  No.401.  

                                                                                  

That without any   fault  on the part of the complainant the O.P  had refunded  a sum of Rs.7,92,000.00 to the  complainant  through  cheque  during the month  of  February, 2021 and March, 2021.   On asking by the complainant to the    O.P.  he  had not replied  to the complainant.   The  complainant from  time to time  contacted to the O.P. over phone and  contacted  in person  at Vizag  for payment  of balance amount a sum of Rs.88,000.00  but the O.P. paid deaf ear. Hence this complaint petition  filed by the complainant and prays the District Commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  the balance amount a sum of Rs.88,000.00 with interest and such other relief as the  District  Commission deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.P   put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P   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 . Hence the O.Ps  prays the District Commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard 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.

That  the  O.P. floated  a  housing  flat  scheme  at  Visakhapatnam in the  name and style  of    Prakruti  Builders .  It  was  stipulated that the price of the  housing flat  would   be collected from the  prospective  buyers in specified   instalments.  Being impressed  by the scheme  and from the authorized agent/broker  of the O.P. the complainant   enlisted   as members of the said scheme.  It  is averred   in the   complaint   that  an  amount  of Rs. Rs.8,80,000.00  was  paid    to the  O.P.  in   different   dates  towards  purchase  of  Flat  No. 401(copies   of the  payment schedule  is available  in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).

 The main grievance of the complainant is that  he has received a sum of Rs.7,92,000.00 against the  payment of Rs. 8,80,000/- less than the amount paid by him i.e. Rs. 88,000.00 and when asked the reason the O.P.   has  stated  that we deducted  10% on paid amount  as per terms and conditions of the  scheme. towards  defaulter customer.   Hence the  C.C. petition filed by the complainant  to get  the  balance amount.

            After  receipt    of the  notice   the  O.P. has filed  written version   stating  and admitting the  complainant  had joined  as a member in the scheme and  Rs.8,80,000/-  was paid  for availing the  Flat under the scheme.  The  O.P. in their  written version submitted that  as per the company  norms at the time of Flat purchase  form   the  complainant  had agreed with  terms and conditions and made a signature  also in the  presence of A.G.M.  According  to  terms and condition of the O.P.  and request  for refund of  deposited  amount  made  by the complainant  the  O.P.  had deducted  10%  on paid  amount  i.e. Rs.88,000/-

          The O.P on the other hand  has not  furnished  any documents  of the  complainant   that he  was unable to pay  the amount in time and also request for refund  of money.

 

Further  the  O.P.  in their  written version contended that    this District Commission has no    jurisdiction   to try the  present  case .

In this connection this  Commision  relied  citations of the Apex  court which  are mentioned here uinder.

It is held  and reported  in Current Consumer  Case 2005  page  No.187 (SS)  where in the Hon’ble  State C.D.R.Commission,Karnataka  observed  “Consumer Protection  Act,1986   Section 3 clause in agreement providing  for restricting the  jurisdiction to resolve   dispute between the parties held  any agreement restricting jurisdiction to a particular  court constituted  under   General / Common Law  can not be extended to  Consumer Forums as they are not courts constituted under Civil  Procedure  Code  but only  quasi  judicial   authorities-revision petition  dismissed.

The C.P.Act  is a piece   of  legislation intends to protect the consumer who suffered injury  at the hands of the other  party.  If the jurisdiction  to entertain  a complaint  is restricted to  Delhi Courts in respect  of  the  transactions between a consumer in   Odisha and the O.P.  necessarily all consumers  in  Odisha  are required to  go  to  New Delhi for redressal  before the  State Commission of  Delhi of  forums  established  in the  State of Delhi.

The  apex  courts  view that  any agreement  entered into between    the parties restricting jurisdiction to a particular  court constituted  under General/common law can not be extended  to the  District   Commission, State Commission and National Commission as the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission are not the  courts constituted  under the Civil procedure code and they  are only the quasi judicial authorities.

In the  aforesaid  circumstances,  despite repeated deficiencies in rendering  service and making mis-representations to the  complainant  by alluring  them  for allotment  of   Flat at Vizag   and suddenly  had refunded  deposited  amount  by deducting 10%  on paid amount   i.e. Rs.88,000.00  without prior intimation   investing  huge money   by the complainant  is a   gross  negligence on the part of the  O.Ps  and liable for payment of compensation  to the complainant.

In this regard  one would like to draw the attention to Section-70,72 and 73 second part  relating to Compensation for failure  to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract” of the Contract   Act.  We reproduce these Sections for ready reference

            70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act. Where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything  to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect  of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.

            72. Liability of person to whom money is  paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion A person to whom  money has been paid, or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion must repay or return it.

73.Compensation for failure to discharge  obligation resembling those  created  by  contract-  when an obligation resembling those  created  by contract  has been incurred  and has not been  discharged any person  injured by the failure to discharge  it is entitled to receive the same compensation for the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.

            Explanation In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, that means  which existed  of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non performance caused by the non performance of the contract must be taken into account.

In the  present case in hand the complainant had incurred  money for  purchase of  Flat  at Vizag  brought  money   in shape of loan  from the  friends  and relatives on    payment of  heavy interest  and this obligation  had not been discharged by the O.Ps. Consequently the  O.Ps were under  an obligation in terms  of second part of Section -73  of the contract Act.  It had  not been discharged. Any person injured by the failure to discharge such an obligation is entitled to  receive  the same compensation from the  O.Ps in default, as if  such person   had  contracted.   According to the Explanation  for the purpose of estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the  loss or damage  arising from a breach of contract, that means   which existed of remedying the inconvenience  caused  by the non performance of the contract  must be taken into account.

The O.Ps were cetainly deficient  in rendering service. The O.Ps therefore can not be absolved  from its obligation  to compensate and could not be expected  to put the complainant in an awkward situation to suffer  an undesirable loss. The    O.Ps are therefore  liable under  law  or torts as well due to deficiency in service.

For better appreciation this commission relied citations of the Apex court  which are mentioned  here under.

 it is held and reported in  C.P.R.2011(2)  page No. 287   where in the  Hon’ble National Commission  observed   Consumer Forum  has adequate jurisdiction to look into controversy between  parties regarding unregistered   deed of agreement

                Further  it is held and reported  in  C.P.R  2012(1)  page  No.2  where in  the  Hon’ble National Commission  observed Builder can not dupe buyer  by selling booked flat  to a third party.

Again   it is held and reported  in 2002 C..T. J page No.477 the  Hon’ble  National Commission observed that     the C.P.Act 1986  passed by the Parliament with a hope that the interest of the Consumers has to be protected in order to curb the exploitation from the service providers and the C.P.Act is a special law over rides the general law of limitation.  Again Section-3  of the C.P.Act is worded in widest terms  and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of C.P. Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law  for the time being in force.  Thus even if any other Act provides  for any remedy to the litigant for redressal by that remedy a litigant can go to District Consumer Forum.  That remedy exists in any other law  which creates the right is no bar to the Forum assuming jurisdiction.  The word ‘In addition to  in Section-3 makes it clear that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the existing laws in force and the C.P.Act provides additional remedies to the consumer.

 

Further  it is held and   reported in  SCC 2004(5) page No. 65 where  in  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed   that the concept of compensation  referred by  the   C.P. Act 1986 and for that purpose to protect the interest of consumer has been in case after case given   wide  connotation and encompasses in its   fold each and every element of suffering including  mental agony, harassment, physical  discomfort, emotional sufferings  or injury  suffered by the consumer.  The provisions  of the   C.P. Act enable  a  consumer  to claim and empower the  forum to redress any injustice done.   The Forum is entitled to award not only  value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.

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  Supreme Court observed  The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling   the consumer  to participate directly  in the market economy. It attempts to remove the  helplessness  if a consumer  which he faces  against powerful business described as  a  network of rackets or a society in which  producers have secured  power  to ‘rob the rest and the might  of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction   where papers do not move from one desk  to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked.  The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and   deep  that  the society instead of   bothering complaining and fighting against  it is accepting  it as  part of life.  The enactment in these unbelievable  yet harsh  realities  appears to be a silver  lining, which may   in course of time succeed  in checking  the rot.   

In the  above judgement the  Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed That the authority empowered to function under  a  statute while exercising power discharges public duty; it has to  act  to  observe   general welfare in common good; in ordinary matters a common man  who has  neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the  in action  in  public oriented  departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility  in the   system where it is found that exercise of discretion was  mala fide  and the  complainant is entitled   to compensation for mental and physical harassment.

Further  It is held and reported  in C.P.R. 1993 (1) Page No. 718 in the case of Airpark Couriers(India) Pvt. Ltd., Vrs. S.Suresh the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  where in observed A breach of contract itself may result in deficiency of service.

            Further  it may be possible  to view any loss  or damage sustained on account of  such deficiency  of service as one arising out of breach of contract, but the Act  specially provides for a special remedy for such grievance and for  compensation for the  alleged loss by getting an adjudication of the dispute by the  Redressal forums constituted  under the Act.  This is in addition to the ordinary remedy available by way of approaching a Civil Court.   So the complainant’s  petition  against the O.Ps in the instant case can not be set aside on account of the breach of contract effected by the O.Ps. 

On  perusal of the papers  filed  by the complainant it is revealed that  the actions of the  O.Ps  are  unfair trade practice in order to grab the money of the complainant, which amounts of cheating and as such the OPs  diserves 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. Undoubtedly such whimsical act of the  O.Ps.  are 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.

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.

Further this commission observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  commission  feel that the O.Ps services are deteriorating and does not follows professional  ethics.  Due to the same attitude  of the  O.Ps  the complainant deprived of  to get the good service from the O.Ps..

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part  and considering the facts of the case we hold that the complainant should not be deprived of  to get the  balance  amount a sum of Rs.88,000.00  from the O.Ps.

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

                                     

 

ORDER.

In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against  O.Ps  on contest.

The  O.P  is directed  to   refund  the balance  deposited amount a sum of Rs.88,000.00 (Rupees eighty  eight  thousand)only   to the complainant within   one  month  from the  date of receipt of this  order  failing which  an interest  @ Rs.18%   per  annum  would  accrue on the above  amount . from  the date of  deposit  till  realization.

 

Parties are left  to bear  their  own cost.

Dictated  and  corrected  by me .

Pronounced   on this     11th .  day  of       November, 2021.

 

                                    Member.                                          President