District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/18/2021
(Date of Filing:-19.01.2021)
- Namita Sarkar
755, Kotrung2No. Government Colony,
P.O. & P.S. Uttarpara, District:-Hooghly, Pin:- 712233
- Narayan Chandra Sarkar,
residing at the same address as noted above.
- The Director,
M/S Alchemist Township India Ltd.
Corporate office:- F%,
Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101
- The Branch Manager,
M/S Alchemist Township India Ltd.
88, G.T. Road (N), P.O. Serampore, District:- Hooghly
…………….Opposite Parties
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Chowdhuri, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 15. 12. 2023
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been allegedly deceived by the opposite parties as mentioned above, in the matter of investment of certain amounts and corresponding return of maturity amounts, the instant case has been filed by the complainants, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Complainant No.2 is admittedly the husband of Complainant No.1.
The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as follows.
Reportedly the complainants having been impressed by ‘goodwill’ and ‘reputation’ of OP 1 claims to have invested an amount of Rs.1,28,750/-on 30.06.2016 with OP1 through OP2 (branch wing of OP 1) which appear to be a private investment company having Corporate office in Chandigarh and branch office in Serampore, Hooghly. Thus, both the OPs belong to the same organization. This investment was made by way of renewal of old deposit.
Reportedly the Opposite parties was running their business by collecting money for their ‘Real estate Business’ and by offering plot of land/villa/apartment in their housing project at Park Avenue, Talwandi Bhai, Tehsil, Zeera, District, Firozpur, Punjab.
A certificate against the said investment is claimed to have been issued for Rs.1,28,750/- and the time span in respect of the said investment was two years and six months.
Provision was made for premature refund of an amount as mutually agreed upon after deduction of applicable taxes and administrative costs if any.
However, on expiry of the stipulated period, the Complainant claims to have approached repeatedly to the OP to get back the maturity proceeds. But the same yielded no result. However, all the persuasions including legal notice were left unheeded by all the wings of the said private investment company.
The complainants claim to have visited several offices of the opposite parties frantically to get back the maturity amount but the same were futile exercises.
Now the complainants considering the attitude of the opposite parties as grossly negligent, unfair and fraudulent, approaches to this forum with a prayer for passing directions to the opposite parties to pay the maturity proceeds of the invested amounts with interest, Rs.3,00,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The complainant in support of the allegation leveled against the opposite parties, has submitted certain documents viz. photocopies of 1) a purported communication received from the OP acknowledging the receipt of the application of the Complainants expressing their interest to acquire plot/villa/apartment in the project of the OP in Firozpur, Punjab, 2) an illegible receipt purportedly issued by OP 2 acknowledging receipt of certain documents for reinvestment/adjustment, 3) application made to OP 1 for payment of maturity amount in respect of deposit for acquisition of plot, 4) legal notice sent to the OP 1and postal track report thereof and 5) pan card adhar card and ration card.
In spite of all sorts of attempts, notices could not be served on the opposite parties and eventually the Complainants had to take recourse to newspaper publication. However even after the said publication, none of the opposite parties made their appearance before this Commission in course of proceedings of the case. Thus the case finally ran ex parte against all the opposite parties. The case was fixed for ex parte argument on 06.10.2023.
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
The complainants and one wing of the opposite party are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/- .Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
The complainant was found ready and evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument filed by them are almost replicas of the Complaint petition. Argument was heard in full ex parte.
Decision with reasons
Materials on records are perused.
It transpires on thorough scrutiny of the content of the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, brief notes of argument and the annexed documents that primarily the Complainants approached to the OP for purchase plot of land/villa/apartment in the state of Punjab. In this connection the Complainants claims to have deposited an amount of Rs.1,28,750/- on 30.06.2016 and that also by way of renewal of old deposit matured within period.
However, if the primary intention of the Complainants was to purchase a landed property i.e. also in the state of Punjab, which is immovable in nature, there should have been an agreement in this regard between the Complainants and the Opposite parties. A one page letter of the opposite party can in no way be sufficient to substantiate the contract. But in the instant case no such agreement appears to have been executed.
The amount in dispute is claimed to have been deposited by way of renewal of old deposit matured within period. No details of such old deposit, corresponding maturity and renewal thereof have been furnished by the Complainant.
The Complainants in their petition has referred to a certificate for Rs.1,28,750/- bearing no. TA02531754 issued by OP 1 but no authenticated copy of the same has been annexed with the representations submitted before this Commission.
The purported unauthenticated and almost illegible receipt dtd.16.03.2013 shows that OP 2 received certain documents for allotment of proportionate undivided share of land and development charges for three years as per an application dtd.15.03.2013.
On careful examination of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that there are apparent discrepancies, self-contradictions, questionable representation of facts, conspicuous inconsistencies and insufficient documentation so far as the content of the complaint petition is concerned.
Hence it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no. 18/2021 be and the same is dismissed ex parte with no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
