Filed on 30.10.2017

Judgment : Dt.27.2.2018

Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member

            This is a complaint, under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 and as amended, made by one Mrs. Pampa Middya, residing at Basudevpur, Arambagh, Ward No.1, Hooghly-712 601 (W.B.), P.S.-Arambagh against M/s Alchemist Township India Ltd. having its registered office at SCO 17, Park Avenue, Talwandi-151 302, Punjab, OP No.1, M/s Alchemist Township India Ltd. having its Corporate Office at SCO 232-233, 3^rd floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh-160 017, OP No.2, M/s Alchemist Township India Ltd. having its Regional Office at 15, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700 013(WB), P.S.-Hare Street, OP No.3, M/s Alchemist Township India Ltd. having its Branch Office at Golpark, 8A, Ballygunge Terrace, Kolkata-700 029 (WB), P.S.-Lake, OP No.4, praying for directions upon the OPs (a) to refund the total amount of investment i.e.Rs.11,55,000/- (b) to pay the total agreed amount of benefit against the investment amount @ 1% per month, from the date of investment i.e.Rs.5,08,200/- (c) to pay compensation for unfair trade practices, harassment and mental agony Rs.83,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- and to pay further amount of benefit against the said investment from 16.10.2017 to till the date of full and final payment @ 1% per month.

            Facts in brief are that complainant by occupation a housewife with her husband as joint applicant invested an amount of Rs.11,55,000/- in 2014 with the OPs. M/s Alchemist Township India Ltd. registered under Companies Act 1956. The Complainant invested the cash amount to acquire proportionate areas of plot/villa/apartment in OP’s housing project at Park Avenue, Talwandi Bhai,Tehsil Zeera, Dist.-Firozpur (Punjab) in category “A” L-No.101 by application(s) made in diverse dates.

            Details of payment as stated by Complainant –

1. The Complainant paid Rs.2,10,000/- to OP No.1 & 2 along with application No.TA05405048 for a period of 3 years with cease period 26.11.2017 against which a cash receipt Sr.No.160 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged from OP No.4.
2. Complainant paid Rs.1,05,000/- along with  application no.TA05345921 for a period of 3 years with cease period 11.7.2017 and a cash receipt Sr.No.164 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.
3. Paid Rs.1,05,000/- along with application No.TA05345919 for a period of 3 years with cease period from 11.7.2017 and a cash receipt Sr. No.165 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.
4. Paid Rs.1,05,000/- along with Application No.TA05345920 for a period of 3 years with cease period from 11.7.2017 and a cash receipt Sr. No.166 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.
5. Paid Rs.1,05,000/- along with Application No.TA005345922 for a period of 3 years with cease period from 11.7.2017 and a cash receipt Sr. No.167 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.
6. Paid Rs.1,05,000/- along with application No.TA05345923 for a period of 3 years with cease period from 11.7.2017 and a cash receipt Sr. No.168 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.
7. Paid Rs.2,10,000/- along with application No.TA05405046 for a period of 3 years with cease period from 26.11.2017 and a cash receipt Sr. No.171 of 15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.
8. Paid Rs.2,10,000/- along with Application No.TA05405047 for a period of 3 years with cease period from 26.11.2017 and a cash receipt Sr.No.172 dt.15.3.2014 was discharged by OP No.4.

The OPs retained the investment and neglected to refund and now the Complainant intends to receive her investment alongwith monthly interest.

Thus being neglected and lost her reliance upon the OPs, the Complainant filed this case.

Notices were sent to OPs but OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and finally the matter was heard ex-parte vide order No.6 dt.29.1.2018. Complainant has filed a petition to treat petition of complaint as affidavit-in-chief.

 Main points for determination

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?

ii) Whether there is a deficiency in service on part of the OPs?

iii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

On perusal of the copies of the documents it appears that Complainant along with her husband as joint applicant have paid to OPs as per details:-

 (a) Rs.2,10,000/- against cash receipt No.160 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05405048

 (b) Rs.1,05,000/- against cash receipt No.164 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05345921

(c) Rs.1,05,000/- against cash receipt No.165 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05345919

(d) Rs.1,05,000/- against cash receipt No.166 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05345920

(e) Rs.1,05,000/- against cash receipt No.167 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05345922

(f) Rs.1,05,000/- against cash receipt No.168 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05345923

(g) Rs.2,10,000/- against cash receipt No.171 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA05405046

(h) Rs.2,10,000/- against cash receipt No.172 dt.15.3.2014 and Certificate of allotment No.TA0505047

So, there is no dispute that Complainant has paid money and she is a consumer.

1) The Complainant has filed some original cheques issued by OPs but, nowhere in the petition of complaint has mentioned about these cheques, for what reason the cheques were issued by OPs or why the same cheques were not been deposited by Complainant for encashment.

2) Complainant has filed 8 original cash receipts and 8 original certificates of allotment issued by OPs which clearly reveal that OPs received payment from Complainant and agreed to offer plot/villa/apartment in their projects or in their other projects and even if it is not accepted by Complainant then the OPs will refund the invested amount with compensation assessed by the OPs and which shall not be less than the invested amount as mentioned in each certificate subject to some deduction of taxes and administrative costs. Thereafter, the Complainant requested for the refund and OPs did not pay or reply, so we hold there is a gross deficiency in service on part of the OPs.

3) Since the OPs failed to honour their commitment and the allegations remained unchallenged and unrebutted, it appears that OPs have thus indulged in extorting money from public at large and thus in the activities of OP constitute deficiency of service and we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

4) As per the interest of 1% amount on various investments as mentioned by Complainant in the petition, we could not find any document filed by Complainant, where OPs have agreed to pay 1% interest per month of the investment from the date of investment. Mere submission of cheques cannot prove that OPs agreed to pay 1% interest.

5)Complainant has also prayed for direction upon OPs to pay benefit amount @ 1% per month of the investment from the date of investment which is in total Rs.5,08,200/- along with compensation of Rs.83,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- which is exaggerated.

So, we are of the view that if a direction upon OPs be given to refund the actual amount i.e.Rs.11,55,000/- to the Complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- justice would be served. We do not find justified for giving any directions upon OPs to pay interest, if we allow compensation.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/598/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part.

            OPs are directed to refund Rs.11,55,000/- to the Complainant.

            OPs are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant within two month from the date of this order. In default, the total amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till full realisation. The liabilities of OPs are joint and several.