The instant complaint is filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the Complainant as purchaser against the officials of M/s Unitech Ltd. at their New Delhi, Gurgaon and Kolkata offices as PO1, OP2 and OP3 and the Broker Agency namely Bajaj Capital Ltd., Kolkata alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties in a consumer dispute of non-receipt of interests from fixed deposits.
The gist of the case as averred by the complainant in a capsulated form is that the complainants had taken Fixed Deposit on 26.07.2010 for 3 year tenure at a rate of interest of 12% per annum in the name of his two family members when regular interest was being accrued by the depositor till 10.07.2013. The same was renewed for Rs. 49,000/- vide FDR receipt no. 1226064 on 30.07.2013 for another 3 years @ 12.5% per annum. But no interest was received allegedly by the complainant after 01.07.2015. Hence the case. Photocopies of the Money receipt from Unitech Ltd. (OP1-3), Application to Unitech Ltd for FD, various follow-up mails to Unitech Ltd., Advocates notice dated 27.06.2016 and by the complainants on 24.09.2016, Acknowledgement of the Broking Agency namely M/s Bajaj Capital Ltd. dated 26.07.2010 etc. are exhibited in support of the claim of the complainant.
From the records, documents and exhibits it appears that the case has been originally filed at Barasat commission and transferred thereafter to Rajarhat commission when it was running ex-parte against OP1, OP2 and OP3. The only contesting OP4 filed Written Version and participated in the exchange of questionnaire and replies. It is admitted fact that complainants awaited receipt of interests generated out of their fixed deposits but the OP 1, OP2 and OP3 took no steps to provide the same on various pretexts. After several reminders also, the OPs deliberately avoided to act in terms of the fixed deposit schemes. Being aggrieved with delay in receiving FD interest, the complainant filed this instant complain petition with a prayer for refund of said deposit of Rs. 49,000/- along with 12.5 % Interest per annum and a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
At this stage it has come to our notice from www.confonet.com that in the Appeal Execution no. 94 of 2019 and 95 of 2019 before the Hon’ble National Commission against the Orders both dated 08/07/2019 in Complaint No. 27/2017 of the State Commission West Bengal in the matter of M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anindita Ghosh and M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Debashis Modak & Sujata Modak that as per Judgement dated 24.01.2020 on both the cases, the Hon’ble NCDRC dealt appeals which were directed against the orders of the SCDRC, West Bengal dated 08.07.2019 and 10.07.2019 whereby the State Commission, despite the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.04.2018 passed in SLP Crl. No.5978-5979/2017 and the order of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 passed in E.A. No.80 of 2016 and connected matters (Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr), decided to proceed with the execution application against the appellant and dismissed the application which the appellant had filed for stay of the execution proceedings. The views and decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in this matter is quoted below : - QUOTE “It is not disputed before me that the appellant M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Private Ltd. is a subsidiary company of Unitech Ltd. The orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in respect of Unitech Ltd. and its subsidiary companies were considered by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in E.A. No.80 of 2016 and connected matters Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. & connected matters on 08.01.2019 and the following view was taken: (10) Unless permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings instituted under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, against Unitech Ltd., and its subsidiary companies of as well as against the persons incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business shall be kept in abeyance, so long as the orders pertaining to them and mentioned in para 35 hereinabove remain in force. (11) Unless permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings instituted under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, against Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited and other applicants in Crl. M.P. No.29029/2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, shall remain stayed so long as the order dated 05.3.2018 is in force. In view of the pronouncement of the three-Members Bench of this Commission, based upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, the State Commission was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant company seeking stay of the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the time frame fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for lodgement of claim on the web portal created on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court having expired, it is not possible for the complainants to lodge their claim on the said portal. Even if this is so, the execution proceedings cannot continue against the appellant company so long as the above referred orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court remain in force. It is for the complainants to decide their next course of action, in view of the circumstances highlighted by them. Therefore, the delay in institution of these appeals is condoned. The impugned orders are set aside and the execution proceedings against the appellant company are kept in abeyance so long as the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of Unitech Ltd. and its subsidiary companies, as mentioned in para 35 of the order of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 remain in force. Of course, the complainants/respondents shall be entitled to seek revival of the said execution proceedings if so permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeals stand disposed of” UNQUOTE | | | | | |
| | | | | |
During pendency of the proceedings of these complaints, from the copy of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2016 titled ‘Bhupinder Singh Vs. Unitech Ltd.’ vide order dated 20.01.2020, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed moratorium against the institution of proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“(vii) Pending further orders of this Court, there shall be a moratorium against the institution of proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The moratorium shall also extend to existing proceedings against the Company as well as the enforcement of orders that may have been passed against the company.”
The SC bench led by Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud also granted moratorium to the new boars of Unitech from any legal proceedings against the Company’s management. The SC has accepted the proposal of proposal to take over the management control of the Unitech Limited by appointment of Govt. nominee directors on the board and complete pending projects of the company for providing relief to hassled homebuyers
Till the time/date, when arguments were heard in these cases, nothing has been brought on record to show that the said moratorium has been vacated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this view of the matter, these complaints are adjourned sine die giving liberty to the parties to file an application for revival of these complaints, in case the moratorium is vacated or modified.
Copies of this order may be collected by the parties, free of cost.
The Registrar of this Commission is hereby directed to arrange consignment of this file to record room which should be carefully retained for future references, if situation arises and file gets recalled.
Dictated and Corrected by
[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
