Branch Manager, The Alchemist Township India Ltd. V/S Parshuram Singh
Parshuram Singh filed a consumer case on 21 Apr 2023 against Branch Manager, The Alchemist Township India Ltd. in the Bokaro Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/91 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Apr 2023.
Jharkhand
Bokaro
CC/16/91
Parshuram Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Branch Manager, The Alchemist Township India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Amardeep Jha and Poonam
21 Apr 2023
ORDER
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro
Date of Filing-17-08-2016
Date of final hearing-21-04-2023
Date of Order-21-04-2023
Case No. 91/2016
Parshuram Singh, S/o- Late Ram Jatan Singh
R/o- Q.No.-411, Sector-3/E, P.O.- Sector-3, P.S.- Bokaro Steel City,
Complainant’s case in brief is that on approach of the men of the O.Ps. he invested prescribed amounts with the O.Ps. in the year 2009 in his name and in the name of his wife on the assurance that their company will provide interest @ 12% per annum and also provide MIS facility, accordingly complainant and his wife Sumitra Singh invested Rs. 3,30,000/- each with the O.Ps. after completion of all the formalities. Accordingly certificates were issued. Further case is that again O.Ps. allured the complainant and his wife for some beneficial schemes related to residential premises hence complainant waited for some period later on he approached the O.Ps. to return his invested amount but assignees of O.Ps. stated that they will provide the entire facilities and benefits at the time of maturity later on complainant applied on 30.07.2013 for allotment of house under the project of O.Ps. accordingly allotment letter was issued. But again O.Ps. failed to provide any house. Further case is that on request O.Ps. issued prescribed cheque of the respective amount with assurance to refund the amount immediately and directed to deposit original certificate and allotment letters for compliance of the refund process, accordingly all documents were deposited but no payment was received, hence legal notice was issued having no impact, thereafter, this case has been filed with prayer to direct O.Ps. to pay Rs. 6,60,000/- of the complainant and his wife and also to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,0000/- as litigation cost.
It reveals from the record that inspite of due service of notice O.Ps. have not appeared hence vide order dt. 19.03.2018 case is being proceeded ex-parte against both the O.Ps.
In support of its case complainant has produced photo copy of letter dt. 13.08.2015 issued by the O.Ps. in his name and in the name of Sumitra Singh (Annexure-A), Photo copy of Cheque dt. 18.08.2015 of Rs. 3,30,000/- each in the name of complainant and his wife (Annexure-B) and photo copy of legal notice (Annexure-C). Except above noted photo copy of the papers there is no other evidence either oral or documentary .
Complainant has not produced fist paper related to MIS Scheme opened in the year 2009 in which he has invested money under MIS Scheme. Annexure-B show that original cheques have been taken back for RTGS but no any evidence has been brought on record to show that after receipt of the cheques on 18.09.2015 money has not been transferred through RTGS. Beneficiary of the scheme are the complainant and Sumitra Singh but said Sumitra Singh has not come forward before this Commission for redressal of her grievance. Therefore, on careful perusal of entire case record we are of the view that there is no any evidence or sufficient material to prove the case of the complainant rather complainant has failed to prove it.
Accordingly this case is being dismissed with cost.
(J.P.N. Pandey)
President
(Baby Kumari)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.