Tripura

StateCommission

A/2/2018

Smt. Sikha Debnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALCHEMIST Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Abhijit Sengupta

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.2.2018

 

1. Smt. Sikha Debnath,

W/o Late Gobinda Kishore Debnath,

Town Rajarbag, P.S. R.K. Pur,

P.O. R.K. Pur, District - Gomati, Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

Vs

 

1. Alchemist Ltd.

Agartala Branch, Central Road, Khush Bagan,

Near Central Bank, Opposite Bazaar Kolkata,

P.S. East Agartala, District - West Tripura,

(Represented by its Branch Manager/Authorised Officer).

 

2. Alchemist Ltd.

Building No. 23, Neheru Place,

Near Allahabad Bank, New Delhi,

Pin: 110019.

 

3. Alchemist Ltd.

Room No. 405, Jyoti Shikhar Building,

Janakpuri, New Delhi,

Pin: 110058.

 

4. Alchemist Ltd.

F-5 Rajib Gandhi IT Park, Gandhigarh,

Pin: 160101.

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellant:                                               Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                          Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 20.02.2018.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 84 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the respondents Alchemist Ltd. i.e. Alchemist Township of India (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) to pay an amount of Rs.3,76,000/- to the appellant petitioner (hereinafter referred to as appellant-complainant) after deduction of the applicable taxes and administrative costs and other costs, if any, as promised by them and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.3,86,000/-. The amount shall be paid within two months, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Appellant-complainant filed the instant appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned District Forum considered four numbers of policies instead of six numbers of policies which were the subject matter of the complaint case and also deducted Rs.1,04,000/- from total amount of Rs.4,80,000/-, i.e., the maturity value of the four policies holding that the complainant-petitioner already received Rs.1,04,000/- though the amount of Rs.1,04,000/- received by the complainant-petitioner was not the subject matter of the six policies for which the appellant-complainant filed the aforesaid complaint case.  
3. The appeal was admitted by this Commission on 11.01.2018 and the notice was issued to the opposite parties-Alchemist Ltd. returnable on 12.02.2018. On 12.02.2018, none appeared for the respondent-opposite parties though from the speed-post track report, it appears that respondent-opposite party no. 2, 3 and 4 had received notice and the notice relating to opposite party no.1 could not be served. The respondent-opposite party no.1 is the Branch Office of respondent-opposite party nos.2 and 3, the Alchemist Ltd., Building No.23, Nehru Place, near Allahabad Bank, New Delhi and Alchemist Ltd. Room No. 405, Jyoti Shikhar Building, Janakpuri, New Delhi respectively. Today the matter is fixed for hearing.
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, none appears for the respondent-opposite parties Alchemist Ltd. Thus the matter is taken up for hearing ex parte against the respondent-opposite parties.  
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant-petitioner filed the aforesaid complaint case before the learned District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in her complaint petition, she specifically stated that being attracted by the advertisement of the respondent-opposite parties Alchemist Ltd., she purchased Fixed Deposit Policy being Policy No. TA 00183660, Consumer ID No. TC 00130942 for Rs.40,000/- in the year 2013. The maturity value of the said amount is Rs.80,000/-. She purchased so many policies including the policies mentioned hereunder from the respondent-opposite parties- Alchemist Ltd.

Sl. No.	Policy No.	Consumer ID	Face Value	Maturity Value
	TA 00183660	TC 00131942			16.07.2013 to 02.09.2015
	TA 00183655	TC 00130939			06.07.2013 to 20.03.2016
	TA 00183659	TC 00130941			16.07.2013 to 20.03.2016
	TA 00183658	TC 00130940			16.07.2013 to 20.03.2016
	TA 00183661	TC 00130943			16.07.2013 to 08.06.2015
	TA 00183670	TC 00130944			16.07.2013 to 08.06.2015

She claimed for an amount of Rs.6,80,000/-, the outstanding matured value of the aforesaid policies and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @12% per annum.

6. The learned District Forum sent notices to the respondent-opposite parties Alchemist Ltd. by post. After receipt of the notice, Director, Alchemist Township India Ltd. filed their written statement. Notice was also sent to the Branch Manager, Alchemist Ltd. Agartala Branch, but the office of the Branch Manager was found closed two times. Then the notice was sent by registered post.
7. Opposite party no.2, Director, Alchemist Ltd. challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum and also denied such payment by the complainant-petitioner. It is also stated in the written statement that the allegation is totally false and fabricated. After filing the written statement, the opposite parties did not appear. So the evidence of the complainant-petitioner was recorded ex parte against the respondent-opposite parties.
8. Complainant-petitioner produced the letter, cancelled cheque, letters of O.P. and cancelled cheque. Certificates are not produced. Even copies of the certificates were also not produced before the learned District Forum.
9. The learned District Forum has gone through the letters addressed to the complainant-petitioner by the opposite parties. It was assured that the payment of Rs.80,000/- will be made, if the apartment of their project is not accepted by the petitioner. The second letter is also regarding the payment of Rs.2 lacs on non-accepting the request for taking the plot. Similarly, third letter was written by the Director for payment of Rs.1 lac for non-accepting the apartment or plot and fourth letter is about payment of Rs.1 lac for non-acceptance of villa/apartment by complainant-petitioner. In the letters, it has also been written that the amount may be refunded after deduction of applicable taxes, administrative costs, if any. Complainant-petitioner did not accept the Villa or apartment as offered by the opposite parties. Copy of one cheque for an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- was produced by the complainant-petitioner which was issued by the Alchemist Township India.
10. The learned District Forum in Paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment has stated that from the 4 letters, it is found that Alchemist promised to pay Rs.80,000/- + Rs.2 lacs + Rs.1 Lacs + Rs.1 Lac, in total Rs.4,80,000/- in the event of non-acceptance of the Villa and refund will be given after deduction of applicable taxes and administrative costs. Out of that Rs.4,80,000/- complainant-petitioner already received Rs.1,04,000/- and finally directed the respondent-opposite parties to pay Rs.3,76,000/- as stated (supra).
11. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned District Forum, the complainant-petitioner filed the instant appeal.
12. As none appeared for the respondent-opposite party no.2 to 4 even after receipt of the notice and the notice could not be served to the Alchemist Ltd. Agartala Branch due to non-availability, the instant appeal is taken up for hearing ex parte against the respondents.
13. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-petitioner while urging for enhancement of the awarded amount has submitted on the ground that the learned District Forum overlooked two policies being Policy No. TA 00183661, Consumer ID TC 00130943, Face Value Rs. 50,000/- and the Maturity Value is Rs.1,00,000/- and Policy No. TA 00183670, Consumer ID TC 00130944, Face Value Rs.50,000/- and the Maturity Value is Rs.1,00,000/-. He further submits that the learned District Forum deducted Rs.1,04,000/- on the ground that the complainant-petitioner received the cheque regarding the said amount, but the fact remains that the cheque received for an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- was provided to the complainant-petitioner by the respondent-opposite parties in connection with the policy of Consumer ID TC 00130945/008506 which was not the subject matter of the complaint case. As a result, the learned District Forum wrongly deducted the amount of Rs.1,04,000/- from the total amount of the four policies. He further submits that the complainant-petitioner neither in her complaint petition nor in her evidence has stated that she received Rs.1,04,000/- in connection with the aforesaid six policies.
14. We have gone through the impugned judgment from which it appears that the learned District Forum even did not mention the Policy No. and Consumer ID regarding the six policies which was the subject matter of the complaint petition before the District Forum, rather only mentioned the amount of purchased certificates of four policies and the maturity value. Admittedly, in Paragraph-13 and 16 of the complaint petition it is specifically mentioned regarding the policies and the Consumer ID which are as follows:-

“13.     That, being attracted by the advertisement of the respondent No.1 the complainant further purchased a fixed deposit policy bearing No. TA 0018 3661, Consumer ID No. TC 0013 0943 from the respondent No.1 at a face value of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) on 16.07.2013.

16.       That, being attracted by the advertisement of the respondent No. 1 the complainant purchased fixed deposit policy bearing No. TA 00183670, Consumer ID No. TC 0013 0944 form the respondent No.1 at a face value of Rs.50,000/- on 16.07.2013.”

Complainant-petitioner not only in her complaint petition, but also in her examination-in-chief specifically mentioned in a tabular form about the six policies which have been mentioned above.

15. After going through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.1,04,000/- which was deducted by the learned District Forum is totally wrong as the said amount is not related to the policies in question. More so, the learned District Forum also failed to consider two policies, the face value of which are Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and maturity value are Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. in total Rs.2,00,000/-.
16. In view of the above, according to us, the complainant-petitioner is entitled to get Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation awarded by the learned District Forum subject to deduction of applicable taxes and administrative costs and other costs, if any, as promised by the respondent-opposite parties. Accordingly, the respondent Alchemist Township of India is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- to the complainant-petitioner. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the judgment, if not paid; it will carry interest @9% per annum.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Learned District Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above. The Complainant-petitioner is also directed to furnish the copy of this judgment to the respondent no.2 and 3.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura