Date of Filing: 24-04-2017                                Date of Final Order: 22-08-2017       

Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.

           The Complainant, Mr. Prabal Pal Chowdhury has filed the present case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for issuing direction upon the O.Ps to return back the FD maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/-each)against two FD certificates bearing Nos.1024668 and 1203005 also FD maturity amount of Rs.75,000/- against FDR No. 1209283 with unpaid interest and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony & unnecessary harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- with other relief.

           Briefly stated the facts of the case can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000 on 14/09/2011 and on 24.12.2012 also Rs75,000/-on 11.02.2013 in Unitech Fixed Deposit Scheme. to the O.P. Company. All the deposits were for 3 yrs. and the O.Ps issued Money Receipts against the said FDRs which are furnished below in details :-

        The Complainant purchased the above Policies with a desire to earn some money by depositing his hard earned money. As per policy condition the Complainant had to get interest @ 12.00% p.a. for the first one and @12.50% p.a. for the rest two FDRs but the Complainant did not receive any interest amount after its date of maturity from the O.P. Company against his deposited money of Rs.50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- to the O.Ps in Unitech Fixed Deposit Scheme.

          Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffered mental pain, agony & harassment and finding no other alternative; he has filed the present case before this Forum seeking redress and reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the Complaint.

         In the present case, the O.P. No.1, Mr. Ramesh Chandra (President of Unitech Ltd.), the O.P. No.2, Mr. Ajay Chandra (Managing Director), and the O.P. No.3, Mr. Sanjay Chandra (Managing Director), all the O.Ps are with Unitech Ltd. (Real Estate Division) did not appear before this Forum. On perusal the case record it appears that the notice has been sent to the O.Ps on 24.05.2017 through registered post with A/D but no S/R is received even after elapsing of one month. Thus, we took recourse of Section 28A (proviso) of CP Act and hold that the article deemed to be served. None appears on behalf of O.Ps. for which this case was heard in Ex-parte against the O.P. No.1,2 & 3.

           In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
3. Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

      We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant. Perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Complainant at a length.

Point No.1.

       The Complainant procured receipt, against Fixed deposit investment of Rs.1,75,000/- from the O.Ps bearing F.D Nos. 1024668, 1203005 and 1209283. The O.P Company issued money receipts by receiving the aforesaid amount from the Complainant with assurance to return the same with fixed interest of 12.00% p.a. and 12.50% p.a. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.Ps u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 2.

          The Complainant invested his money through his authorized agent and the total payment of this investment made through the Axis Bank Ltd. Cooch Behar Branch. Moreover, the complaint value of the present case is far less than the prescribed limit. Hence, this Forum has the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

Point No. 3 & 4.

        The Complainant filed the case because of nonpayment of Maturity amount against his fixed deposit (B/S Scheme) FDR No.1024668 of Rs.50,000/- (matured on14.09.2014), and FDR No. 1203005 of Rs. 50,000/- (matured on 24.12.2015)  and FDR No. 1209283 0f Rs. 75,000/- (matured on 11.12.2016) by M/s Unitech Ltd. along with interest.

           The Complainant files some documents marked as Annexure A-1,A-2,A-3, A-4 &A-5, B-1 &B-2.

           The Complainant filed the present address of the OPs as follows. (Annexure- B-1)

CUSTOMER RELATIONS, COMMERCIAL & SALES:
Unitech Limited, Unitech House L Block, South City - 1, Gurgaon 122001,Haryana,  Tel: +91.124.4125200/4125328, Fax:+91.124.2383332.

REGISTERED OFFICE:

Unitech Limited, 6 Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110017, Tel: +91.11.41664040/ 26857330-1, Fax: +91.11.2685.7338

           It is pertinent point to mention that a huge number of cases against the Unitech Private Limited have been filed by the a number of persons but the Unitech Company did not come forward before this Forum for contesting the allegations made by the Complainants in different cases. The non appearance of all the O.Ps proves that they have nothing to say against the complaint made by the Complainant.

           The Complainant filed Evidence on Affidavit and also participates in the Ex-parte hearing of argument.

       The Complainant files Xerox copy of details of bank cheques which he deposited to the OPs. The complainant admitted that according to the company’s terms and conditions the originals of such documents had been sent to the OPs.

          The opposite party in this case is mainly a real estate company.  It is a common recommendation of the investment advisors that, deposits accepted by real estate and manufacturing companies are best avoided. This is mainly because these are capital intensive sectors and suffer a cash crunch most of the time. The assets, when it comes to certain manufacturing industries and especially real estate, are highly illiquid. Thus, usually we find that the credit ratings of such bonds or FDs are low, reflecting higher risk,

         The Unitech Ltd. for instance, has been facing issues of delayed project handovers in its construction business. So, it comes as no surprise that there are several complaints against Unitech in consumer forums for non-repayment of principal as well as delays in interest payments on fixed deposits. In fact, the Company Law Board directed Unitech to repay deposits within 30 days in May this year.

         According to a renowned news paper (The Hindu, Business line dated Aug11 .2016) about 41 investors of realty major Unitech's fixed deposit scheme have filed an appeal with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), demanding refund of double of the principal amount invested by each investor and 20% interest per annum for the delayed period, The whole-time directors and the managing directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, of Unitech had also been summoned by the NCLT in the case. The appeal also demands the maximum fine and imprisonment to the accountable officials of the Company. The Company Law Board in March had asked Unitech to pay Rs 30 crore to the investors till July, but the company failed to comply with the orders. The CLB then asked the depositors to take appropriate legal recourse.

         It is pertinent to mention here that so many cases have been filed before this Forum against Unitech as to non-payment of fixed deposit amount. Thus, it is a fact that even after passing order of Company Law Board, the Unitech failed to give payment to its investor. Thus, deficiency in service of the O.Ps cannot be ruled out.

          The complainant claimed to refund the maturity amount with up to date interest and compensation.

          As it is already proved that the Complainant is the Consumer and the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service, we decide the case in favour of the Complainant without any hesitation and allowed reasonable relief as per law, equity and gravity of the case.

Hence,

          it is Ordered,

                        That the present Case No. CC/51/2017 be and the same is allowed Ex-parte with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the all OPs.

       The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay to the Complainant the total Maturity Amount of Rs.2,53,062/- against FDR Nos. 1024668, 1203005 and 1209283 with 9% interest p.a. from the date of maturity of the deposited amount till its full realization. The Complainant do get an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agonies and for deficiency in service of the O.Ps.

         The O.Ps are further directed to comply with the above mentioned order jointly and/or severally within 45 days failing of which the O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

     Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.