DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.02.2021.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, Member:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she is a Senior Citizen and bonafide customer of the O.Ps by agreeing in writing and investing of Rs.1,50,000/- towards property infrastructure management on 30.09.2010. Though as per understanding, the complainant applied through Application on 18.09.2010 bearing Application No.310740, Unique IN:ATHL/BAM-1/SEPT/18/17 and paid through Demand draft bearing No: 027135/36/114499 of Karnataka Bank Ltd. The O.P.No.3 is the Chief Administrative head of O.P.No.1 & 2. The O.P.No.1 is the head office, whereas the O.P.No.2 is the Branch Office of the O.P.No.1 & 3. According to AT Group Property Management Agreement executed in between complainant and the O.P. No.1 & 3, on the terms and conditions as stated in the private property placement Memorandum and to this agreement as follows:
a) The First Party/complainant is aged about 60 years or more than the 25% of the amount invested would be utilized in trading by Demand Account.
b) The rest of the 75% amount the Second Party/Opposite Parties would be allotting a plot of vacant land to the First Party/complainant as per the previous clause.
c) Where the First Party/complainant being of the age of 60 years and above then the amount invested fund would be returned back to the First Party with the portion of vacant land after the completion of lock-in period.
d) Claim, Settlement: This agreement carries a lock in period of this agreement 36 months in case of invest amount of less than one lakh ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine rupees. And a maximum period of 60 months for return which shall also taken as the lock in period for every purpose of property management agreement.
e) The prior to the lock in period or before expiry of this agreement the first party/complainant shall not be entitled to claim for premature refund of growth returns from the second party/Opposite Parties.
f) To pay the remuneration, compensation fees and discount towards lands as payouts in monthly intervals by 1st week of every month.
In referring to Annexure-2, the O.Ps have given payment @Rs.4500/- per month from January 2011 to May 2012 and in toto a sum of Rs.72,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/-. According to Annexure-2, the O.Ps never disclosed about the 25% of the invested amount as yet. According to Annexure-2 the O.Ps agreed to pay the amount minimum of 36 months and up to 60 months as lock in period. The O.Ps paid only for 16 months out of the aid period. The O.Ps were given a murky of water from the ocean. Subsequently, the O.Ps to avoid the further payment of the complainant as per the Annexure-2 gave deaf ear to the demand of the complainants several times prior to file this case. Now the O.P.No.2 left and closed down the offices due to hue and cry of other investors and general public at large. And the O.P.No.3 was caught red-handed by the State Government police authority due to further delay in payment to other investors of the state like the complainant and now he is in jail custody since last one month. Now the O.P. is in jail at Bhubaneswar. Inspite of the above approaches, no tangible steps has been taken by the O.Ps as a result the complainant effected day in day out. The O.P.No.1 to 3 are responsible for the above deficiencies in service and having vicarious liability to pay the compensation for unfair trade practice, misleading advertisement and deficiency in service provided to the complainant. On account of the service deficient by the O.Ps the complainant sustained following losses:
i | Invested amount | Rs.1,50,000/- |
ii | Return of 75% of the invested amount in 60 months @ Rs.4500=Rs.2,70,000-paid Rs.72,000/- | Rs.1,98,000/- |
iii | After lock in period | 1 plot in free of cost |
iv | Return of 25% invested for trading, opened a Demat account | Rs.37,500/- |
v. | Exemplary cost to harass senior citizen | Rs.10,000/- |
vi. | Compensation for agonies-Financial losses, mental agonies and physical harassment. | Rs.50,000/- |
vii. | Interest @10% per annum on principal amount/invested amount till final realization of the said amount. | |
Viii | Litigation cost | Rs.5000/- |
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to return the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited with the O.Ps, to pay the rest of the margin amount as per Annexure-2 a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- for 44 months, compensation of Rs.50,000/-,to pay interest @10% per annum on the invested amount of Rs.1,50,000/- till final realization of the total amount, to pay the 25% of the invested amount, directing the O.Ps to hand over a vacate land, litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties but they neither appeared nor filed any written version. As such notice published in the daily newspaper “Anupam Bharat” dated 21.02.2017 for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but they did not appear. Hence the O.Ps are declared exparte on dated 18.05.2017.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant has received Rs.72,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/- (investment amount). Thereafter, the O.Ps did not release the rest money alongwith interest to the complainant. So taking the sole testimony of the complainant as well as affidavit in to consideration, we accepted the contentions of the complainant as true. Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”.
On foregoing discussion and In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay Rs. 78,000/-i.e. (Rs.1,50,000/- - Rs.72,000/-already paid) only along with 8% interest per annum from the date of deposit i.e. on 18.09.2010 to the complainant within 60 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- for compensation alongwith Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 10th February 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
