DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __54_ _ OF ___2019
DATE OF FILING :_9.4.2019 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 21.11.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Jagdish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : Badal Karmakar, son of Sri Adhar Chandra Karmakar of Vill. & P.O Ganeshnagar, P.S Kakdwip, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743357.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Manager, Alchemist Township India Ltd. Flat no.1511, Undivided Front Portion of Hemkund Chambers, 89, Neheru Place, New Delhi - 110 019.
2. The Branch Manager, Alchemist Holdings Limited/Alchemist Township India Ltd./Alchemist Infra Realty Limited, (Near Kakdwip Hospital More), P.S Kakdwip, District-South 24-Parganas, Pin-743347.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Member
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
The opposite parties issued certificates to the complainant for payment of amount of Rs.15000/- in connection with Allotment No.RC 00108230 dated 3.1.2010 which has been matured on 14.12.2018 in the name of the complainant . Thereafter, the complainant surrendered the certificates to the O.Ps for the purpose of withdrawing the maturity value of the certificates. But, the maturity value of the certificate was not paid to him. Letters were sent to the O.Ps, claiming payment of the maturity value of the certificates . But no response was available from the O.Ps. So, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for return of Rs.15,000/- , payment of compensation, cost punitive damage etc. Hence, the case.
The O.P-2 has not appeared and filed any written statement to contest herein and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against him.
It is O.P-1 who has filed written version of statement which is kept in the record. In the written version filed by the O.P-1, there is no positive case made out save and except taking of some technical objection. The complaint , as goes the averment of written version, is in the nature of a property dispute and, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a case which is tantamount to a suit for land dispute. It is further pleaded in the written version that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction in so far as the O.P-1 is concerned. According to O.P-1, his place of business is situated at New Delhi and , therefore, this Forum cannot have any jurisdiction to try the case against the O.P-1. It is also averred in the written version filed by the O.P-1 that the complainant did not submit any letter claiming return of maturity value of the certificate and ,therefore, no payment was made to the complainant.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable before this Forum?
- Is the complaint maintainable against O.P-1 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Evidence on affidavit along with the documents is filed on behalf of the complainant. O.P-1 also filed evidence on affidavit which is kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It is submitted in the written version filed by the O.P-1 that the dispute between the parties is in the nature of land dispute and, therefore, the instant case is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. This submission of O.P-1 appears to be not acceptable. It is admitted fact that the complainant invested money with the O.Ps and that the O.,Ps also agreed to pay interest to the complainant month by month and thereafter to return the maturity value of the certificates to the complainant on a particular date. The term “Service” is defined in section 2(1)(O) , C.P Act, 1986 and it includes among other things, the banking business. Now to see whether the investment of the money by the complainant with the O.Ps amounts to banking business or not. We have to see now what the banking business is . “Bank” means , according to concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition, “a financial establishment that uses money deposited by the customers for investment, pays it out when required, makes loan at interest and exigencies currency.
In the instant case, it is the positive averment of the complainant , which has not been denied by the O.P-1 , that the money was invested with the O.Ps by the complainant and that the O.Ps also promised to return the same on the date of maturity. Such kind of transaction is certainly a part of banking business and that’s why the activities between the complainant and the O.Ps surely fall within banking business and as such, it is a service as defined under section 2(1)(O) of the C.P Act, 1986. This being so, the instant case appears to be maintainable in Law under the provision of C.P Act, 1986.
It has also been submitted in the written version by the O.P-1 that the complaint is not maintainable against her as because the place of her business is located at New Delhi which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
It is true that the place of business of O.P-1 is not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint that the cash which was invested with the O.Ps by the complainant was collected by the O.P-2. O.P-2 is the Branch Manager of O.P-1 company and his office is situated within the District of South 24-Parganas . As the cash has been collected by the O.P-2 within the district of South 24-Parganas , part of cause of action has arisen within this State and ,therefore, the complaint is entertainable within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in accordance with the provisions under section 11(2)( C ) , C.P Act, 1986.
Both the points are thus primarily answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.3 & 4 :
Now to see whether the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant for not returning the maturity value of the money invested with them by the complainant.
Deficiency in service is a fault, imperfection or inadequacy in nature, quality and manner of performance of a service enjoined by the Law for the time being in force or by any provisions of contract reached between the parties. Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that O.Ps agreed to return the said amount of Rs.15,000/- on the maturity date of the said amount. It was also agreed by the O.Ps that they would pay interest upon the said amount @12% p.a on each and every month until the maturity date arrived. Now, it is the duty of the O.Ps to return the maturity value i.e Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has stated on evidence that the said maturity value of the certificates has not been paid to him by the O.Ps. It is not also denied by the O.P-1 that the said maturity value has not been paid to the complainant. Rather, it is submitted by the O.P-1 in her written version, as such, “The complainant has not sent/submitted any letter for return of maturity amount , as alleged or at all and puts the complainant to the strict proof thereof. In such circumstances , no payment could be made to the complainant”. This very averment of O.P-1 goes to prove that the maturity value of the certificates has not been returned to the complainant by the O.Ps and this being so, the complainant is deemed entitled to get the return of the said value i.e Rs.15,000/- from the O.Ps. Non-payment of the maturity value of the certificate to the complainant within the agreed period of time is a glaring example of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant has certainly undergone a tremendous harassment and mental agony due to such deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps will have to pay compensation to the complainant on this count.
Thus , point nos. 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
Both the O.Ps, who will remain jointly and severally liable for making payment, are directed to return Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused to him ,within a month of this order ,failing which, the refund amount and the compensation amount along with the amount of cost as referred to above, will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a certified copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of cost at once by the Register-In-Charge of this Forum..
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
.
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
Both the O.Ps, who will remain jointly and severally liable for making payment, are directed to return Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused to him ,within a month of this order ,failing which, the refund amount and the compensation amount along with the amount of cost as referred to above, will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a certified copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of cost at once by the Register-In-Charge of this Forum..
