Order No. 13 dt. 18/02/2019
The complainant filed this case against the o.ps. stating inter alia that the o.p no.1 Alchemist Township India Ltd. issued a Certificate of property bond for 34 months to the complainant on realization of considerable amounts from him as consideration. The said company agreed and promised to handover plot/villa/apartment to the purchaser of the bonds interest in bond no. TA00342608 of Rs.40,000/- for 2 years and 10 months. It was also assured by the o.ps that if they failed to provide any plot/villa/apartment to the complainant as per the terms of the bond they will return the consideration amount after maturity of the bond. But after the maturity period on 22/06/2016 o.ps. have not refunded the principal amount of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. company for refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that this case is not maintainable of this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. The complainant is not a consumer as per the provision laid down U/S2(1c) of CP Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the o.p. no.1?
- Whether o.ps. failed to refund the said amount to the complainant after maturity period?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer of the complainant argued that the o.p no.1 Alchemist Township India Ltd. issued a Certificate of property bond for 34 months to the complainant on realization of considerable amounts from him as consideration. The said company agreed and promised to handover plot/villa/apartment to the purchaser of the bonds interest in bond no. TA00342608 of Rs.40,000/- for 2 years and 10 months. It was also assured by the o.ps that if they failed to provide any plot/villa/apartment to the complainant as per the terms of the bond they will return the consideration amount after maturity of the bond. But after the maturity period on 22/06/2016 o.ps. have not refunded the principal amount of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. company for refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost.
Ld Lawyer of the o.p argued that this case is not maintainable of this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. The complainant is not a consumer as per the provision laid down U/S2(1c) of CP Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a senior citizen and he paid an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Complainant in order to prove the said fact filed photo copy of the bond wherefrom it appears that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and the maturity period of the said bond was mentioned of 2 years and 10 months and the o.ps also gave an undertaking that they will provide the plot/villa/apartment to the complainant within the said period but the complainant was not provided the same, for which the complainant demanded the amount but the o.ps. did not pay any heed for which the complainant filed this case and praying for refund of his amount.
The complainant in order to substantiate his allegation filed his evidence whereby it was categorically stated that in spite of the expiry of the period the o.ps. did not refund the amount and the complainant was not provided any property as mentioned in the bond. Thereby the complainant had no other alternative but to pray for refund of the amount after the expiry of the period as mentioned in the bond itself. The said fact has not denied by the o.ps. The o.ps. also admitted in the evidence that the complainant paid an amount and due to the various litigations the o.ps. are not in a position to pay the amount. In view of such evidence of record we hold that the complainant after the expiry period which has mentioned in the bond was neither provided any property as mentioned in the bond nor refunded the amount paid by the complainant. In view of such evidence since after the expiry of the period as mentioned in the bond the complainant filed this case, therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and the complainant will be entitled to get the amount as mentioned in the bond, the complainant will also be entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No. 136/2018 allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
