FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra,Member.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for a directionr upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as security deposit along with interest and also a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-  deposited  from Jan.2013 to Nov.2013 as refund and to pay further a sum of Rs.90,000/- for negligence and deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.4,00,0000/- compensation for mental pain and agony and to pass such other order or orders as the Forum would deem fit and proper.

                The case of the complainants, in brief, is that they relying on representations made by Tower Group in the form of advertisements in leading dailies and on electronic media contacted with the authorities with the Tower Group with a genuine wish to live the remaining days of life under their safety, security, compassion and care. On invitation the complainants attended the inauguration programme of “ Tower Neer” in august of his Excellency M.K.Narayanan the then Hon’ble governor of West Bengal and Hon’ble Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen, former Judge High court at Calcutta on 16.11.2012 the acceptance of of the Tower Group solidified into faith in the mind of the complainants. The complainants with faith moved into “Tower Neer” after complying formalities and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- per head as security deposit and with monthly payment of Rs.5000/- per head as the cost of living. Subsequently the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.400000/- as security deposit for both of them through cheques. Thereafter the complainants deposited in every month from Jan.2013 to Nov.2013 as monthly payment of “Tower Neer’ for a sum of Rs.10000/- per month. Soon after moving into “Tower Neer” the helpless complainants started realizing the hard realities and malafide intentions on the part of Tower Group. The complainants repeatedly contacted Mr. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, director Tower Infotech Ltd and Mr. Biswadeb Koley, one of the Director Tower Group and CEO “Tower Neer” with other officials of Tower Neer for proper documentation, money receipt without revenue stamp or registration number. That even after repeated representation and appeal from the complainants about substandard services and deviation from the promises made by the OP during acceptance of charges for services in their brochure, all went into shattered dreams as there is no library, no internet or landline facility, no lift, inadequate electric wiring and voltage supply, no geyser in wash rooms, unhealthy food, rooms are not well ventilated, ill-maintained gardens with indisciplined and rowdy security guards, no proper medical facilities or any qualified MBBS in house doctor. Gradually your complainants realized that their life is within the clutches of chit fund tycoons siphoning huge moneys from our society with various money marketing strategies. Your complainants roamed like cats and dogs for help from the doorsteps of local police station to superintendant of police to District magistrate they forwarded the detailed representation before Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen (Dealing with Fund scam) with a copies to Hon’ble Governor & Chief Minister of WB. That on 11.06.2013 your complainants intimated the S.P.Hooghly regarding the matter and also to D.M. Hooghly on 2.12.2013 but of no result. They were forced to withdraw from the Tower Neer due to disruption in electricity and other essential services. Then the complainants on several occasions contacted with the Tower Neer authority to get the security deposit back. The complainants are bonafide customers or consumers of the instant OP i.e. Tower Group.

      The OP appeared by filing written version denying the allegations as leveled against them and averred that the Tower Neer is the project of tower Infotech Limited and for social well being and upliftment and for the well being of the old aged peoples. That in the year 2013 the Central Government of India black listed the Tower Infotech Limited and directed to stop all the functions and business doings of the company therefore the company was compelled to move before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta for selling out their moveable and immoveable property and repay to its investors, claimants, customers or creditors. The Company has submitted the entire assets list to the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and Tower Neer was also the listed property within the assets of the company and as per the direction of the Hon,ble Justice Sanjib Banerjee passed on 20.09.2013, the Company handed over all the moveable and immoveable properties of the company to the SEBI for selling and repaying the interested investors, claimants, customers or creditors. He assailed that the complainants voluntarily withdrew themselves from thr Tower Neer without any intimation to the management of Tower Neer. At the time of getting membership the complainants executed an agreement and agreed with all the terms and conditions of the Tower Neer and accordingly gave their consent by putting their signatures. As per terms and conditions of the agreement the complainants will get 60% of their deposited money. That as per order of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta the SEBI is the only authority to repay the said money to the complainants so the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. It is specifically stated that there was every facilities which was in the agreement and by withdrawing themselves the complainants violated the terms of the agreement. The OP further stated that he moved before the High Court at Calcutta for seeking intervention for the purpose of repaying the secured creditors and the cases are still pending before the High Court at Calcutta so the hands of the Ops to do anything beyond the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.    

  The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition.

The arguments and evidence on affidavits are taken into consideration for passing the final order.

Argument as advanced by the agent of the complaints heard in full.

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

 1. Whether the Complainant Samarendra Ganguly& Sikha Ganguly are ‘Consumers’ of the opposite party?

2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4. Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Samarendra Ganguly& Sikha Ganguly ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainants are “Consumers” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The complainant herein is the consumer of the OP, as the complainants took shelter in the old home of OP by paying monthly rent and paid advance money, so OP is the service provider..

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as security deposit along with interest and also a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-  deposited from Jan.2013 to Nov.2013 as refund and to pay further a sum of Rs.90,000/- for negligence and deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.4,00,0000/- compensation for mental pain and agony ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.               

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

           The complainants herein being a consumer of the OP were staying at the old home run by the OP after paying the security as well as monthly rent. During the staying at the said home they felt a lot of deficiency on the part of the OP and when they raised protest before the OP they could not met the problem but tried to save their skin in a clandestine manner. The complainant wanted to get return of their security deposits but the OP replied that according to the order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta the assets of the OP is under the control of SEBI so they are unable to return back the security deposit of the complainants. The answering OP denied the allegations leveled against them.

        It appears from the case record and documents that the acceptance of security deposit from the complainants is not denied by the OP they only denied the deficiency of service on their part but they are unable to return back the security deposit of the complainant at this moment as the assets are under the control of the SEBI according to the order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. The Complainants herein being the old persons attracted by the terms and conditions of the said home wanted to take shelter at the home run by the OP. The helpless complainants started realizing the hard realities and malafide intentions on the part of Tower Group. The complainants repeatedly contacted Mr. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, director Tower Infotech Ltd and Mr. Biswadeb Koley, one of the Director Tower Group and CEO “Tower Neer” with other officials of Tower Neer for proper documentation, money receipt without revenue stamp or registration number. That even after repeated representation and appeal from the complainants about substandard services and deviation from the promises made by the OP during acceptance of charges for services in their brochure, all went into shattered dreams as there is no library, no internet or landline facility, no lift, inadequate electric wiring and voltage supply, no geyser in wash rooms, unhealthy food, rooms are not well ventilated, ill-maintained gardens with indisciplined and rowdy security guards, no proper medical facilities or any qualified MBBS in house doctor. But the OP could not discard the allegations leveled against them by producing sufficient documents but only denied by written objection.

        From the above discussion we are in a considered opinion that the OP could not evade their responsibility of deficiency of service on their part and they are under liability to return back the security deposits of the complainants alongwith interest.

4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

        The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainants  abled to prove their case and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the amount that deposited before them as security deposit of the complainants alongwith interest.

ORDER

                    Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.144/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite parties in part with a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- against the opposite party.

               The opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and/or severally a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of receiving the amount till the realization to these complainants within 45 days from the date of receiving this order.

                 At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the fund of

  “ Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

              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 & necessary action.

Dictated and corrected by me.   Samaresh Kr. Mitra, Member.