Per Mr.H.K.Bhaise, Hon’ble Member
1) The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, she had invested sum of Rs.1 Lakh in Paresh Virchand Chheda MCX A/c by cheque No.129701 dated 17th April, 2010. The scheme was growth scheme which refunded at the rate of 6.25% growth plus 6.25% principal for a period of 16 months. The amount would be credited directly to the bank through online fund transfer by the opponents w.e.f. 17th May, 2010. The complainant received 8 installments upto 18th December, 2010 and thereafter stopped the payment. The complainant issued letter to opponents. The opponents sent letter dated 1st February, 2011 alongwith cheque dated 17th August, 2011 for amount of Rs.1 Lakh. But, the same was returned back with endorsement of ‘Insufficient Fund’. The O.P.No.1 & 2 sent letter dated 1st October, 2011 stating that they are not in a position to refund the total amount. After this letter, the complainant approached the opponent at Dadar office. The opponents misguided her for settlement and forced her to purchase the flat for consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-. The opponents will adjust the amount of Rs.1 Lakh and the complainant has to pay balance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- or the complainant has to go for the row houses from their sister concern i.e. O.P.No.4 M/s.Divyabhanu Developers. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that there is no plot in the name of the opponents. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of balance amount Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum w.e.f. January, 2011 and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2) The complainant deleted the name of O.P.No,1,2,3 vide order dated 9th April, 2012. The O.P.No.4 remained absent though duly served. Therefore, the matter is proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.No.4.
3) After hearing the representative of the complainant and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether the complaint is maintainable against the O.P.No.4 ? | No |
2) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
3) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No. 1 to 3:- As per the complaint, the complainant invested amount of Rs.1 Lakh with the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 failed to repay the amount as per the agreement and asked the complainant to go for the row houses from their sister concern i.e. the O.P.No.4. The complainant has produced one blank form of letter of allotment. On perusal of it, it is not in the name of anybody. It is also not signed by anybody. The said letter does not connect the O.P.No.4 with the present dispute of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show the connection of O.P.No.4 with this complaint. Admittedly, there is no payment to O.P.No.4. Therefore, the complainant is not the consumer and the O.P.No.4 has no connection with the complainant. There is no privity of agreement in between the complainant and the O.P.No.4. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P.No.4. The complainant has already deleted the names of O.P.No.1,2 & 3 and the complaint is withdrawn against them. Therefore, there is no merit in this complaint and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 6th December, 2013
