Order

None appears for the OP. No evidence on affidavit is filed by the OP. However, learned counsel for the complaint is present. We have heard him.

2. The captioned complaint case is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short) by the complainant against the opposite party seeking relief for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OP.

3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being allured by the advertisement of the OP purchased a piece of land at Atala near Bhubaneswar town area of 40’ x 50’ and paid the cost of land for Rs.7,09,000/- to the OP in different instalments. Complainant also alleged that he has paid Rs.10,000/- towards registration cost to the OP. It is alleged that in spite of full and final consideration paid, the OP started playing hide and seek by not executing the registered sale deed. On the other hand, the OP demanded more amount. Challenging the same as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant sent lawyer’s notice on

18.11.2014. As the OP remained silent to the notice, the complaint was filed.

4. OP filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by limitation. It is also stated that there is no cause of action against the OPs. The OPs denied to have received any payment from the complainant. He specifically stated that there is one foot note to the cash receipt that for any payment in cash the Company is not responsible. Since the payment has not been accepted, the complainant falsely stated to have paid the money. OP also took the plea that the scheme is purely contractual and no subscriber is to allege the deficiency in service in any manner. Moreover, they have taken the plea that the matter should be referred to the arbitrator for settlement of the dispute between the parties. On the other hand, he submits that he is no way responsible and the complaint should be dismissed.

5. After hearing both parties following issues emerge for decision:-

I) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

II) Whether the complaint case is maintainable and there is cause of action to file the case?

III) Whether the complainant has paid the amount to the OP as alleged?

IV) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation or cost?

ISSUE No.III

6. It is well settled that complainant has to prove the case. No doubt the agreement between the parties is admitted. The only transaction of money is denied by the OP. Complainant in his evidence filed the money receipt which shows that on different occasions from 2003 to 2006, he paid the instalments totaling Rs.70,000/- and registration fee of Rs.10,000/-. The OP has taken the plea that there is already foot note that Company shall not be responsible for cash transaction but at the same time, the cash has been received by the office of OP in the printed form. Since the cash has been received in spite of the endorsement made in the foot note, the complainant cannot be blamed but the OP has adopted unfair means because they have advised certain things but did opposite things. Thus, the statement of the complaint supported by documents clearly proves that the OP has received the money with registration fee but did not register the land pursuant to the agreement. OP has not adduced evidence to dispute the fact of the complainant. In view of aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Issue No.III is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.IV

7. Since the complainant has already paid the money but the plot has not made available by the OP in spite of repeated request, the complainant is entitled to the cost of the land and registration charges deposited. Not only this but also the complainant has stated in the complaint and the evidence on affidavit that he was running after the OP f