Date of Filing: 30-03-2016                                                      Date of Final Order: 08-09-2016

Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.

           The Complainant, Mrs. Madhumita Saha 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.10,12,245/- in total (Rs.1,45,217/- + Rs.2,90,434 + Rs.2,90,434/- + Rs.2,86,160/-) 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.2,00,000/- dated 18/08/2011, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 20/07/2012, Rs.2,00,000/- dated 10/08/2012 & Rs.2,00,000/- dated 18/08/2012 in Unitech Fixed Deposit Scheme for 3 years 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 to earn his livelihood. 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.7,00,000/- in total to the O.Ps in Unitech Fixed Deposit Scheme bearing FDR Nos.1024149, 1190621, 1191704 & 1191427 which are matured dated 18/08/2014, 20/07/2015, 10/08/2015 & 18/08/2015 respectively.

            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 of the track report of India post , it appears that on 21-04-2016, the article was bagged to industrial estate from Gurgaon CRC. On 06-06-2016 We take the recourse of Section 28A (proviso) of CP Act. Thus, the article deemed to be served. None appears on behalf of O.Ps. We hold ex-parte against all OPs. 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 receipts, against Fixed deposit investment of Rs.7,00,000/- from the O.Ps. The O.P company issued money receipt by receiving the certain amount from the Complainant with assurance to return the same with fixed interest of 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 SBI, Cooch Behar Branch So, the Jurisdiction of the Complainant within this District. Moreover, the complaint value of Rs.10,12,245/- 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.

            The Complainant filed the case because the Maturity amount against his  fixed deposit (B/S Scheme) FDR No.1024149of Rs.2,00,000/- (matured on 18/08/2014), FDR No.1190621 of Rs.1,00,000/- (matured on 20/07/2015),FDR No.1191704 of Rs.2,00,000/- (matured on 10/08/2015) and FDR No.1191427of Rs.2,00,000/- (matured on 18/08/2015), in the name of Mrs. Madhumita Saha , Joint Holder Subrata Ghosh  respectively placed with M/s Unitech Limited is pending to be paid by M/s Unitech Ltd along with interest.

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

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

            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 but no S/R is received. We take the recourse of Section28A (proviso) of CP Act. Thus, the article deemed to be served. None appears on behalf of O.Ps. We hold ex-parte against all OPs. 

            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”, “B1”, “C1 complainant file  Xerox copy of details of bank cheque which he deposited to the OPs. In Annexure –“D1” the complainant submit the Xerox copy of fixed deposit Renewal Form. The complainant admitted that according to the company’s terms and conditions the originals of such documents are being send to the OPs.

            The complainant also file a document (Xerox Copy) which reflect that she tried to make contact with the companies Law Board to resolve the matter. But all efforts are in vain.

            With the evidence on affidavit (Anex-2)the complainant file the details of his investment (Statement of accounts/ Xerox copy of Bank pass book) which reflect the entire monitory transaction between the complainant and the OPs.

            The opposite party in this case is mainly a real estate company.  It is a common recommendation of the investment advisers 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, 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 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 rewound 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 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 so many cases has been filed before this Forum against Unitech as to non-payment of fixed deposit amount. Thus, it is real fact that even after passing order of company’s 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 of Rs 10,12,245/- (Ten  lakh Twelve thousand Two Hundred forty five only) with interest.

          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.

ORDER

Hence,

           it is Ordered

                     that the present Case No. CC/38/2016 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the all OPs.

            The O.Ps are hereby directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.10,12,245/- with 9% interest from the date of maturity of the deposited amount  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 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 State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal.

            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.