DATE OF FILING: 26.09.2013

    DATE OF DISPOSAL: 15.12.2017

Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W):   

            The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.

            2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the complainant is a lady and bona fide customer of the OPs who deposited amounts towards consideration for purchasing of immovable property of (Land/House/Flat) from the O.Ps as follows:

As per the complaint, the O.P.No.1 is the sub-ordinate administrative Branch Office of O.P.No.2 & 3. The O.P.No.2 is the registered office whereas the O.P.No.3 is the Corporate Office.  It is a professional corporate house having Mida’s Mission 2020. It is an ISO 9001-2008 certified corporate house. It is a registered Company bearing Regn.No.CIN No.U74140OR1995PLC004269/ dated 24^th September 2009. As per the advertisement of O.P.No.2, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- to purchase the immovable properties. The O.P.No.2 also fixed the general terms and conditions to pay the double the amount within 4 years 3 months of investment under this scheme. The O.P.No.2 also issued a plot after completion of terms in 51 months.  When the complainant demanded to O.Ps to give information about the status of the land/house/flats, the O.P.No.1 & 2 did not give any attention to the complainant. The complainant presumed that the O.Ps are doing unfair trade practice and accordingly he approached O.P.No.1 for several times but to no avail. Thereafter, the O.Ps to avoid to handover the plot issued post dated warrant cheque to the complainant. Now the O.P.No.1 & 2 left the office due to hue and cry of the general public at large. In spite of the above approaches, no tangible was taken by the O.Ps to provide the declared immovable properties to the complainant as a result she sustained financial loss and suffered from mental harassment day by day. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to return the invested  amount of Rs.5,20,000/- with 10% interest from the date of investment till final realization of the said amount and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interests of justice.

            3. Notices were issued against the O.Ps but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version to contest the case. However, the complainant published the notice through local Odia Newspaper Anupam Bharat on 15.03.2014 but that also did not serve any purpose and the O.Ps did not care appear and not filed their written version  hence O.Ps were declared set exparte on dated 21.12.2015 and was proceeded accordingly.

            4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case record and perused the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. On perusal of the case record and after going through the written argument and other vital documents, we find that there is no dispute or doubt that complainant invested a total amount of Rs.5,20,000/- in the company of O.Ps for a term of 4 years 3 months to make the invested amount double. The deposits were made on different dates like on 10.02.2011 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the projected value of said deposited was shown to be Rs.10,00,000/- as on 30.05.2015 as per the bonds. Similarly, on 23.02.2011 she deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the projected value was Rs.20,000/- to be paid on 30.05.2015 and on 23.02.2011 she also deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the projected value was Rs.20,000/- as on 30.05.2015 respectively and accordingly the complainant was supplied with certificate of bonds. On further verification of documents it reveals that the complainant has filed this consumer dispute before date of maturity since as per the bonds the date of maturity deposits was on or after 30.5.2015. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 26.09.2013 hence it is considered to be a premature complaint. On admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the O.Ps but returned undelivered with remarks redirected to the sender on 04.12.2013. Then the complainant published newspaper notice in Odia Daily ‘The Anupam Bharat’ on 15.03.2014 which also did not serve any purpose and at last the O.Ps were declared set exparte on 21.12.2015. Even after notice duly serviced, the O.Ps remained silent and not appeared before this Forum to file their written version and not contested the case. In the foregoing peculiar fact and circumstances in our considered view we would like to state that where no written version had been filed by the O.Ps to controvert complainant’s allegations, same is to be held correct. In the instant case, it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the complainant has deposited the amounts stated above with the O.Ps and the O.Ps neither provided the land/house/flat nor returned the projected value of the deposits which amounts to unfair trade practice on part of the O.Ps. Hence, the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to return the amounts to the complainant with interest and cost of litigation.

5. As far as the claim of the complainant is concerned, in the instant case, the complainant has prayed to return the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. But we feel that it will be just and proper to direct the O.Ps to return the deposited amount together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Similarly, we are also convinced to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation since the complainant has hired the service of a professional Advocate to file her case and has paid the court fees. However, we are not inclined to award any compensation since we have already granted interest to be paid by the O.Ps at the rate of 8% per annum on the deposited amount and we feel compensation and interest can’t be awarded simultaneously in a consumer dispute. In the light of above discussions and considering the fact and circumstances of the present complaint, we allowed the complaint of the complainant against all O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to return an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of receipt of the amount till actual payment is made to the complainant. Our finding is supported by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Prasant Sanghi & Anr. Vs. SNS Interbuild Pvt. Ltd reported in I (2008) CPJ 261 (NC) decided on 16.11.2007 vide FA No.466 of 2005 where it was held that ‘not refund of money on demand amounts to deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps. In a sequel to the above discussions and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, we allowed the case of the complainant against all O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to return the deposited amount together with interest as discussed above. oHoq 

6. In the result, the case of the complainant is allowed against the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to return an amount of Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Thousand) only with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment is made to the complainant. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant to meet the cost of litigation as discussed above. The above orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the whole amounts under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. No orders as to compensation.

            7. The order is pronounced on this day of 15^th December 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of