Date of Filing: 31-03-2016                                                      Date of Final Order: 30-12-2016

Smt. Runa Ganguly, President-in-charge.

                The Complainant Mr. Sekhar Chakraborty S/o. Late Sisir Chakroborty, 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.1,28,672/- with compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental pain, agony & unnecessary harassment and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            Briefly stated the facts of the case can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant invested Rs.50,000/- on 07/06/2013 for 1 year and further Rs. 50,000/- on for three years in Unitech Fixed Deposit Scheme to the O.P. Company and the O.Ps issued Money Receipt against the said FD scheme which are furnished below in details :-

            The Complainant purchased the above Policy for profit by depositing his hard earned money. 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/- & further Rs. 50,000/- to the O.Ps in Unitech Fixed Deposit Scheme bearing FDR No. 1221666 & UL/FD/B/090958 respectively which matured on 07/06/2014 & 06.08.2014 respectively. The O.P. Unitech did not make payment of maturity amount also failed to pay monthly interest.

           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.

         It appears that no S/R of Notice upon 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) is received. The Notice was sent to the said O.Ps on proper address dated 11/04/2016 through Regd. Post with A/D but no S/R is received by this Forum. In this premises this Forum has been taken recourse of Section 28 A (3) (Proviso) and hold that the article have been deemed to be served. Thus, the case proceeded with 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 Receipts, Certificates against Fixed Deposit investment of Rs.10,00,000/- in two occasion from the O.Ps. The O.P Company issued Money Receipt  by receiving the said amount from the Complainant with assurance to return the same with fixed interest of 11.50%p.a. & 12.50% p.a. respectively. 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 to Unitech Company through his authorized agent and the total payment of this investment made through the S.B.I., Cooch Behar Branch. So, the Jurisdiction of the Complainant within this District. Moreover, the complaint value of Rs.1,35,000/-  with other relief which is far less than the prescribed limit.

              Hence, this Forum also has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

Point No. 3 & 4.

              Evidently, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Unitech Company through a cheque &draft bearing No. 514595dated 03.06.2013 and 270533 dated 02.08.2010(AnnexureA1&B1) for a fixed deposit of 1 year and 3 yrs. Respectively.

             The Complainant filed the present case due to non-receiving of the maturity amount against his fixed deposit (B/S Scheme) FDR Nos, 1221666 & UL/FD/B/090958 even after depositing the original certificate to the M/s Unitech Ltd. (Real Estate Division) in due time and that is pending to be paid by M/s Unitech Ltd. along with interest.

              The Complainant filed the present address of the O.Ps as follows.

CUSTOMER RELATIONS, COMMERCIAL & SALES
Unitech Limited, Unitech House L Block, South City - 1, Gurgaon - 122001Haryana, 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.

             As the fixed deposit Office is situated at Gurgaon, we sent the notices on those address.

           The Complainant filed complaint petition with relevant documents, which we send to the O.Ps. It appears from the C/R that the notice was sent to the O.Ps dated 15/04/2016 but no S/R is received and accordingly, we take the recourse of Section 28A (proviso) of C.P Act. Thus, the article deemed to be served. None appears on behalf of O.Ps for which we hold Ex-parte against the all O.Ps. 

            The non appearance of all the O.Ps proves that they have nothing to contest against the complaint made by the Complainant.

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

           In Annexure - “A1”, “A2” & “B1”,”B2” the Complainant filed Xerox copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt and details of bank cheque, DD which he sent to the O.Ps after the maturity date of the fixed deposits (duly sealed and Signed by the O.Ps). The Complainant admitted that according to the company’s terms and conditions the originals of such documents has been sent to the O.Ps.    

          The Complainant by swearing an affidavit stated the fact of non-payment of maturity amount from the end of the Unitech Company also files the details of his investment (Statement of accounts) which reflects the entire monitory transaction between the Complainant and the O.Ps. The O.Ps. did not contest the case and the allegations of the Complainant remain unchallenged.

           The O.P, in this case is a real estate company.  To begin with, 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, is 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 Ltd. in Consumer Forum for non-repayment of principal as well as delays in interest payments on fixed deposits. In fact, the Company Law Board directed Unitech Ltd. to repay deposits within 30 days in May this year.

           According to a renowned news paper (The Hindu, Business line dated 11 Aug., 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 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 has 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 many cases has been filed before this Forum against Unitech Ltd. as to non-payment of fixed deposit. Thus, it is real fact that even after passing order of company’s Law Board, the Unitech Ltd. failed to give payment to its investors. Thus, deficiency in service of the O.Ps cannot be ruled out.

           Thus, the present case succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.

           As it is already proved that the Complainant is the Consumer and the O.Ps 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.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that,

            The present Case No. CC/41/2016 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs.5,000/- against the all O.Ps.

      The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in connection with the FDR Nos. 1221666 & UL/FD/B/090958 along with interest as per fixed deposit certificates (11.50% p.a from the June 2013to the date of maturity 07-06-2014 and 12.50% p.a. from 06.03.11 to the date of maturity 06.03.2014 respectively) to the Complainant. OPs are further directed to pay 9% interest on total maturity amount from the date of maturity (07-06-2014 & 06.08.2014 respectively)to date of payment along with Rs.10,000/- for mental pain & agonies and for deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The O.Ps are further directed to comply with the above order jointly and/or severally within 45 days failing of which a penal interest @ 9%p.a. shall be levied on the unpaid amount till realization.

       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.