Order-16.
Date-30/11/2015.
In this complaint Complainants Pulak Kr. Maity and Alok Kr. Maityby filing this complaint has submitted that complainantsdeposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide Certificate No. 001597, SDS A/c No. 793 as per ops claim and it was initially for 7 years and subsequently it was renewed and the expiry date was 07.07.2016.
But peculiar factor is that without any notice suddenly a sum of Rs. 3,08,757/- was transmitted and credited in the SB A/c No. 03220110002902, though in the said certificate it is specifically mentioned that rate of interest is 8 percent p.a. w.e.f. April-2014 to March-2015 and if the interest is calculated over the said amount, the figure ought to have been Rs. 24,000/- as interest.But in lieu of that the total interest of Rs. 8,757/- was accumulated.
Similarly Alok Kr. Maity deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the term of 4 years and that was also renewed for 4 years.But suddenly the op in the bank account of the complainant no.2 in his UBI A/c being No. 0316010107255 having Certificate No. WBHB/001598 SB A/c No. 794 credited a sum of amount giving annually 4 months interest.
As per Book Let of the ABHB without any intimation and without any discussion, the said amount was transmitted and credited in the account of the complainant without giving proper interest in respect of the said amount and fact remains that for one flat each, complainant paid the same and was waiting for a flat.But ultimately op has deceived the complainants in such a manner and back behind the knowledge of the complainants, they have deposited the said amount without giving proper interest as noted in the certificate.
In the above circumstances, complainants have filed this complaint for redressal on the ground that they have deceived by the op and op has adopted unfair trade practice for which the present complaint is filed for proper redressal.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainants deposited the amount abide by the rules and regulations by the Board and the such Regulations stipulates that the said payment is accepted in terms of Regulations and the said Regulations are also reserved the rights to alter, amend of the said policy without giving any notice.
As per Board’s decision the said scheme has been withdrawn and according to the record the payable amount has been paid to the investors and as such the question of any negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the op no.1 does not arise and as such the op no.1 strongly denies the same.
At the same time the allegation of the complainants that the op no.1 has deceived the complainants is completely false in view of the fact that the WBHB took decision for returning of the deposited amount and the same has been refunded to the respective depositors in terms of the said policy and for that reason the entire complaint is baseless and without any foundation.
Moreover both the complainants ought to have been filed two separate complaint but without separate filing, a joint complaint is filed by the complainants for which the complaint is not maintainable for which the complaint is false and fabricated for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also after critical appreciation of the Booklet of the West Bengal Housing Board (WBHB) subject to deposit scheme, we find that deposit will be accepted for maximum period of 10 years and minimum initial deposit shall be Rs. 10,000/- and after making initial deposit, a depositor may make further deposits in multiplies of Rs. 5,000/- from time to time and there shall be no maximum amount of deposits. In case of NRI, a minimum initial deposit shall beRs. 50,000/- and subsequent deposit shall be Rs. 25,000/- and a depositor shall have to make an application for deposit in the prescribed printed form appended to these rules.
It is specifically mentioned against Rule No.5 that the deposit shall carry interest defining for one year and above but less than 2 years 6 percent p.a., deposit for 2 years and above but less than 4 years 7 percent p.a. and deposit for 4 years and above and up to 10 years 8 percent p.a. and interest shall accrue from the date of realization of the cheque/draft/pay order tendered for the deposit and shall be payable annually on 31st March of each year and payment of interest shall be subject to deduction of income tax at source as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act as amended from time to time.
Against Ruling 7 it is specifically mentioned that 25 percent of the dwelling units/plots in each category of accommodation as offered by the Board, will be reserved for the depositors subject to the following conditions- a) It is mandatory to deposit Rs. 50,000/- for LIG, Rs. 1,50,000/- for MIG and Rs. 3,00,000/- for HIG at least six months prior to the scheduled last date of submission of application form to be eligible for priority allotment as indicated.
Against Ruling-10 it is specifically mentioned that deposits may be renewed for a further terms or not exceeding 10 years from the date of maturity.All the depositors of any particular deposit shall have to apply in writing and on receipt of such written request, deposit certificates shall be suitably endorsed by the authorized official of the WBHB indicating such renewal.
Considering the Booklet of the Scheme that is subject to deposit Scheme of the WBHB, we are confirmed that op as a Government autonomous establishment sold their specific scheme to the customers and purpose of the scheme is nothing but to take special deposit against subsequent allotment of flats or land and invariably being allured by the advertisement of the op, many intended purchasers of flats or land deposited the same and by that way op collected huge amount.But ultimately it is proved from the op’s own written version that they did not proceed with the scheme and cancelled the scheme and refund the amount.
No doubt it is evident from the special deposit certificate being No. SDS/793 in the name of Pulak Kr. Maity that the maturity date of scheme was 06.07.2012 and Pulak Kr. Maity complainant deposited on 07.07.2008 a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for 4 year terms.Thereafter it was renewed on 07.07.2012 and it was valid up to 07.07.2016.
But peculiar factor is that in the meantime the op without intimating about their decision or without taking consent of the complainant cancelled the scheme and refunded the amount.But actually they did not give interest at the rate of 8 percent p.a. as noted and minimum 7 percent interest in case of 4 years was not at all given to the complainant Pulak Kr. Maity.Similarly Alok Kr. Maity deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 10.07.2008, date of maturity 09.07.2012 and same was also renewed on 09.07.2012 and maturity date was 09.07.2016 for 4 years and interest rate is written 8 percent p.a. but that interest was not given against that amount.
But about nonpayment of the interest over the said sum, same has not been explained by the op and op has not explained for what reason they did not pay the interest over the said amount when from their own document it is found that amount was taken by the op subject to payment of 8 percent p.a.
Most interesting factor is that in the account of Pulak Kr. Maity on 28.04.2015 a sum of Rs. 3,08,757/- was transmitted and credited by the op cancelling the said scheme and certificate.So, it is clear that complainant Pulak Kr. Maity received only total interest of Rs. 8,757/-, but it is not explained in the written why how this lower rate of interest was calculated as total interest against deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 07.07.2008 and it was continued up to 28.04.2015 that means this total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was received by the op was in the disposal but interest at the rate of 8 percent P.A. for a period of 6 years and 9 months was not paid, though in their letter it is specifically mentioned that usual interest shall be deposited in the account of the complainant or depositor annually by 31st March of each year and if the said interest rate is calculated over Rs. 3,00,000/-, in that case per year interest over the deposited amount ought to have been Rs. 24,000/- per year, but that amount was not deposited annually 31st March of each year.If it would be deposited year to year, in that case, the figure of the total amount for refund ought to have been about Rs. 1,54,000/- because the said amount had been enjoyed/used by the op for about 6 years and 9 months.But against that only Rs. 8,757/- was paid defying the rule as formulated by the op at the time of selling of the said scheme and also at the time of purchase of the said scheme by the complainant Pulak Kr. Maity.
Similarly it is also proved beyond any manner of doubt that Alok Kr. Maity purchased the special deposit on payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 10.07.2008 and it was continued up to 18.04.2015 and on that date op by adopting SDS method transmitted the sum of Rs. 51,633/- that means against payment of Rs. 50,000/- and after enjoyment of the said fund by the op for about 6 years and 9 months paid only interest an amount of Rs. 1,633/-.But actually as per admitted rules of the op in respect of the said scheme, complainant Pulak Kr. Maity is entitled to get 8 percent interest over the same and interest over Rs. 50,000/- per year at the rate of 8 percent p.a. would be Rs.4,000/- per year and when the said amount was in the domain of the op and they enjoyed it, in that case, complainant Alok Kr. Maity ought to have been given interest to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-.But in place of that only Rs. 1,633/- was added with the total amount as deposited and only Rs. 51,633/- was given to the complainant.
So, it is clear that in all respect defying all rules and regulations of the op, op somehow or otherwise to deceive the depositors cancelled the said scheme and refunded the deposited amount and meagre amount of interest as alm without complying the regulations as framed by the op and such sort of act on the part of the op’s institution is no doubt unfair trade practice.No doubt the complainants with deposited the same with hope that in future they shall have to get a flat and if the op the government concern deals a business in such a manner and in that case it is proved that their act provoked other private developers and promoters to adopt some theorization and actually private promoters and developers adopted such path only after following the op’s activity in this field and such sort of activities on the part of the op is no doubt a deceitful act in all respect and their dealing of such sort of trade is nothing but an unfair trade practice and no doubt op has violated their terms and conditions and deceived the complainants in so many manner and negligence and deficiency on the part of the op is well proved in view of the fact that without intimating the complainants, they deposited the said amount that is total deposited amount but they did not give proper interest at the rate of 8 percent p.a. as per their own regulations and that is no doubt an unfair trade practice and by adopting such path they have deceived the complainants no doubt the legally complainants are entitled to get such interest at the rate of 8 percent p.a. and for which complainant Pulak Kr. Maity is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- as interest whereas Alok Kr. Maity is entitled to Rs. 30,000/- as interest in total on the date of transmission of the amount by the op in the account of the complainant but that has not been paid by the op.So, by adopting of unfair path and method and process op illegally transmitted the lower amount than that of the actual amount what complainants are entitled to.
In fact the present op is running such business and deceiving the public in so many manner being a Government establishment and that has been pointed in so many cases but their dishonest practice is being continued which is proved in the present case also.
Considering the conduct of the complainants and their very activities and also considering the materials, we are convinced that op has no defence for which they have stated something without any legal foundation and that is common defence of the op in most of the cases.But anyhow complainants have proved the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op and at the same time it is proved that they have adopted unfair trade practice by deceiving the complainants by giving a meagre interest though complainants are entitled to 8 percent interest p.a. over the saidamount and in respect of the period 6 years and 9 months and they are entitled to get the said interest and for the negative attitude and deceitful manner of trade, complainants were compelled to file this complaint when op refused to pay their legal right to get 8 percent interest p.a.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- against ops and ops shall have to pay that cost dividing Rs. 5,000/- to each complainant.
Ops are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as interest against the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- made by Pulak Kr. Maity and Rs.30,000/- to him against the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- by the Alok Kr. Maityto him within one month from the date of this order, failing which for harassing the complainant for any further period, ops shall have to pay penal interest at the rate of Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.
For adopting unfair trade practice and to deceive the complainants in such a manner and also considering the repeated conduct of adopting such unfair trade practice in deceitful manner also, ops shall have to deposit penal damages of Rs. 25,000/- to this Forum within one month from the date of this order.
For harassing the complainants in such a manner and for deceiving the complainants by adopting such a path and also for causing mental pain to the complainants, ops shall have to pay Rs.10,000/- each to each complainant as compensation within one month from the date of this order.
Ops are hereby directed to comply this order very strictly within stipulated period, failing of the expiry of the said period, penal action shall be started against ops u/s 25 read with Section 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon ops.
