This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Arit Kumar Saha and op no. 1 is the Branch Manager of Alchemist Limited, Chinsurah Branch, Buroshibtala, Hooghly and op no. 2 is the Director of Alchemist Township India Limited having its office at Flat no. 1511 Undivided Front Portion of Hemkund chambers 89 Nehru Place, P.S. Kalkaji New Delhi-110019 and op no. 2 Alchemist Group of Industries used to mobilize money from public by lunching collective investment scheme which was inter-alia fixed deposit scheme of different periodicity including MIS and issue receipt memo containing certain terms and conditions as regards to allotment of plot/villa/apartment in its housing project at Park Avenue, TalwandiBhai, Dist. Ferozepur, Punjab  and accordingly  the complainant allured of attractive interest opted for conversion of his invested amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 2.7.2013 to opposite party no. 2 from Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. a sister company and was allotted customer ID NO TC00219463 as per receipt memo no TA00029615 dt. 16.7.2013 and the period of investment was up to 3.4.2018 which was already over and the maturity amount was Rs. 4,00,000/-. The complainant states and contends that the dispute cropped up when the op nos. 1 and 2 did not offer any plot/villa/apartment to the complainant during the investment. The complainant further contends that the complainant demanded the maturity value from the op no. 2 but till now op no. 2 have not paid the same for which the complainant has been financially suffering leading to a lot of mental agony and the cause of action of this case has arisen on and from 30.4.2018 when the maturity date of the investment is over.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay the said maturity value of Rs. 4,00,000/-with 10% interest beyond the maturity date till realization and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10000/- for his mental agony and to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- for conduct of this case.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 2,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The complainant states that the opposite party no. 1 is the branch manager of Alchemist Limited Chinsurah Branch and the opposite party no. 2 is the Director of Alchemist Township India Limited having its office situated at Flat no. 1511 Undivided Front Portion of Hemkund chambers 89 Nehru Place, P.S. Kalkaji New Delhi and opposite party no. 2 used to mobilize money from public by launching collective investment scheme which was inter alia fixed deposit scheme of different periodicity including MIS and issue receipt memo containing terms and conditions. Being allured the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 2.7.2013 and the complainant is the bona fide consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant states that the dispute cropped up when the maturity period is over but the complainant has not been offered any flat/villa/apartment by the opposite party no. 2 during investment. The complainant states that the complainant demanded the maturity value from the opposite party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2 did not pay the same to the complainant for which the complainant has been suffering mentally and financially.

Due to the conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has been subjected to harassment. As the complainant invested hard earn money and prayed before the Forum directing the opposite parties the maturity value of Rs. 4,00,000/-with 10% interest beyond his maturity date till realization to the complainant and further prayed before the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.

It reveals from the case record that inspite of received notice the opposite parties did not appear and the track report in respect of service of summons upon the opposite parties has been filed by the complainant. After given the opportunity to opposite parties this Forum thereafter passed ex parte order against the opposite parties and the date was fixed for filing evidence on affidavit and for filing BNA by the complainant and the complainant files evidence on affidavit and BNA.

In view of the above circumstance, it is clear from the case record that the opposite parties never offered any flat/villa/apartment to the complainant during the investment. The complainant demanded the maturity value from the opposite party no. 2 by sending legal notice but from 6.8.2018 to till date the opposite parties have not paid the same for which the complainant has been suffering financially and a lot of mental agony.

Being aggrieved the complainant has come before the Ld. Forum with a prayer directing the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 10% interest and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and also prays for a direction upon the opposite parties to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.

In this connection to prove his case the complainant filed some documents by Firisti.

1. One original certificate being no. TA00029615 addressing to the complainant Arit Kumar Saha by the by the Alchemist Township India Limited dt. 16.7.2013 signed by its Director, C.S Jolly.
2. Xerox copies of final order in connection with C.C. Case No. 102 of 2018 passed by the Hon’ble Forum, Purba Medinipure.
3. Another two Xerox copies of final order passed by the Hon’ble President Purba Medinipure in connection with C.C. Case No. 5 of 2018 and C.C. Case No. 10 of 2018.
4. Brief notes of argument.

In view of the above it is clearly established that the complainant is  a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986 and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties according to the Consumer Protection Act.

Hon’ble National Commission of India held that technicalities will not be looked into very seriously while dealing with consumer case.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complaint case be and the same allowed ex parte against the opposite parties.

Both the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant jointly and severally along with 10% interest per annum from the date of maturity of the investment till full realization of the awarded amount falling which the complainant will at liberty to put this order into execution.

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.