PURNIMA PATNAIK Vs. SEVEN HILLS ESTATES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 23rd November 2010 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, 'the State Commission') in FA No. 547 of 2009 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'the District Forum').

(2.) The facts are described in detail in the impugned order of the State Commission. The opposite party (OP) had floated a scheme for sale of housing plots at a place near Bhubaneswar in 1999. The petitioner/complainant booked three plots, each costing Rs. 24,000/-, payable in 30 monthly installments of Rs. 800/-. The complainant paid the first installments on 15.07.1999 and the last on 08.01.2002. The OP wrote three separate letters, each dated 25.10.2002, informing the complainant that she had been allotted plots no. 64,65 & 66 and asking her to pay Rs. 5000/- for each plot towards cost of execution of the sale deed and its registration. It is the complainant's own case that on receipt of these letters, she visited the project site but was surprised to find that the site was different from what had been mentioned in the OP's brochure, the plots had not been developed nor was their any boundary demarcation. According to her, despite her subsequent attempts she could not ascertain the detailed facts about the state of affairs from any representative of the Company nor she was able to get any documents. Ultimately, on 20.10.2003, she wrote to OP 1 (respondent herein) to supply detailed information and documents about the status of the plots in order to enable her to complete the registration requirements. It is also the case of the complainant that she did not receive any reply to this letter. However, it was on 13.07.2007, i. e. , nearly four years from the date of preceding communication that she next wrote to OP 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 72,000/- that she had paid along with interest @ 18% per annum, if OP 1 failed to register the sale of the plots in question in her favour by 16.08.2007. There was apparently no response to this letter which led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum on 05.10.2007.

(3.) In the impugned order allowing the appeal of OP 1 and dismissing the complaint, the State Commission observed as under: