SEVEN HILLS PLANTATIONS LTD vs NIRANJAN MISRA

THE opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 75/95 disposed of by the District Forum, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi are the appellants in this appeal. THE present respondent as complainant in the aforesaid case alleged deficiency in service on the part of the present appellants and claimed for redressal of his grievances.THE complainant had deposited sum of Rs. 1,400/-for two Teak trees with M/s. Seven Hills Plantations, Berhampur (opposite party No. 2) through their authorised Sales Supervisor who were opposite parties 1 and 3 before the District Forum. THE aforesaid amount was deposited with opposite party No. 1 in five instalments. But no certificate was issued till December, 1994. His demand for the certificate did not bring any fruitful result and therefore he filed the aforesaid case.

OPPOSITE party No. 3, namely, the Sales Supervisor of opposite party No. 2 filed his version contending that he had received Rs. 500/- from the opposite party No. 1 which he deposited with opposite party No. 2. But the rest of the amount has not been received by him. It was also stated by him that he was no longer in service under opposite party No 2 with effect from 18.2.1995 and therefore he has no liability so far as the claim of the complainant is concerned. Opposite party No. 2, namely. Seven Hills Plantations filed its version. The essence of its defence was that on receipt of an application for Teak trees accompanying the full amount, the Teak tree acknowledgement receipt, an integral part of such application will be given to the applicant duly stamped in accordance with the scheme whereafter a Teak tree certificate will be given to the concerned investor if his application is acceptable to the Company in exercise of its own discretion within a period of three months. It is stated that the complainant did not deposit full consideration for the Teak trees but the true fact is that he made some payments in instalments and therefore no certificate was issued to him. There appears to be no dispute that the complainant paid in instalments.

The District Forum after hearing both parties directed the opposite party No. 2 Company to issue the required certificate for two Teak trees with effect from 5.2.1994 taking it to be the date of receipt of the last instalment. Hence this appeal.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued the case and also filed a written note of argument contending that in the present case the complainant was not entitled to the required certificate as he did not make payment at a time. He referred to certain terms of the scheme which were read out during the course of hearing of this appeal, to the effect that the investor is required to deposit the full amount of consideration alongwith his application and there is no dispute as already stated that though full consideration has been paid by the complainant, the same was paid in instalments the last of which was Rs. 500/- on 1.7.1995 i.e. during the pendency of the case. If the complainant had not paid the full amount of consideration alongwith the application, the Company should not have accepted the consideration in instalments. Having accepted the consideration in instalments it must be deemed that the Company accepted the application for consideration even with part payment of the consideration. It may also be said that the original terms in this scheme stood defeated by the implied consent of parties as it appears. It has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the last instalment was cleared on 1.7.1995 i.e. during the pendency of the case. Hence if at all the Company is liable, then it should be considered within three months from 1.7.1995. THE opposite party No. 1 and the affidavit of the complainant in reply to the above-mentioned stand of opposite party No. 2 make us to accept 5.2.1994 as the date of last payment and not 1.7.1995 as has been made out by the opposite party No. 2. This application should have been treated to be complete in all respects i.e. it becomes a complete one for consideration as by that time full consideration amount had been paid. In such view of the matter we are not prepared to accept that the complainant was not entitled to the certificates for the Teak trees for which he had paid the full consideration by 5.2.1994. In the result, we do not find any merit in this case and hence this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.