CHATANYA SIDDHARTH filed a consumer case on 27 Oct 2016 against RR INVERTORS CAPITAL in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/1052/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Apr 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 1052/14
S/o Shri Y.P. Singh
R/o C-68, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110 092
W/o Shri C. Siddharth
R/o C-68, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110 092 ….Complainants
Vs.
Through its Manager
106, Pankaj Chambers, Preet Vihar
Delhi – 110 092
Through its Chairman Mr. Ramesh Chandra
6, Community Centre, Saket
New Delhi – 110 017 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 10.12.2014
Judgment Reserved on: 27.10.2016
Judgment Passed on: 24.11.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
JUDGEMENT
Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainants Shri Chatanya Siddharth and Mrs. Sangeeta Chaudhary alleging deficiency in service against RR Investors Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Unitech Limited (OP-2).
2. The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainants on 04.08.2013, deposited with OP-2 an amount of Rs. 35,000/- each @ 12% p.a. through OP-1 in FDR bearing no. 1190930 and 1191054 for a period of 2 years. Complainant no. 2 further deposited Rs. 40,000/- bearing FDR No. 1230806 @ 11.50% p.a. on 30.08.2013 for one year. The maturity date of the above mentioned FDRs were 04.08.2014 and 30.08.2014 respectively. On maturity, the complainant approached OP-1 and handed over the original receipt, which was forwarded to OP-2. The maturity amount was not refunded despite several reminders and legal notice dated 05.08.2014. Feeling deprived of his legitimate right complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 1,33,606/- total maturity amount of FDRs, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
Legal notice dated 05.08.2014 is annexed with the complaint. Notice of the complaint was served on OPs.
3. OP-1 filed their written statement and admitted that they were the broker/agent/manager of OP-2 and earned nominal commission. It was also stated that no deficiency in service can be attributed on their part and rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.
OP-2 was duly served, but they did not put any defense despite several opportunities, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte on 01.08.2016.
4. Affidavit as evidence was filed by the complainant, where Shri Chatanya Siddharth was examined and the contents of the complaint were reproduced, OP-1 examined Shri Subhash Narang, Senior Manager on oath, he also reiterated the contents of written statement.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and have perused the file. As OP-1 is the agent of OP-2, thus OP-1 cannot be held liable for the acts of OP-2, the principle. It is OP-2 who had issued the FDRs to the complainants. Thus, OP-2 is liable to refund the money deposited by the complainants. Hence, we direct OP-2 to refund an amount of Rs. 1,33,606/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint. Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is also awarded in the favour of the complainant. This amount shall include litigation expenses also.
The awarded amount be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the total amount of Rs. 1,43,606/- will carry 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.