Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/32

Sri Subir Laskar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Rose Valley . - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. K.Dutta

17 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  32 of 2014

    1. Sri Subir Laskar,
     S/o- Late Jagneswar Laskar,
     Laxmi Narayan Bari Lane,
     Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura.

     2. Smt. Sova Laskar,
     W/o- Sri Subir Laskar,
     Laxmi Narayan Bari Lane,
     Banamalipur, Agartala,
     West Tripura.                .............Complainants.
    

         ______VERSUS______

          The Branch Manager,
         Rose Valley(Real Estate & Construction Ltd.)
         Mantri Bari Road, 
         Near R.M.S. Chowmuni, 
         Agartala, West Tripura.        ... ............Opposite Party.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant     : Sri Koushik Datta,
                   Advocate,            
                                              
For the O.Ps             : Sri Subrata Sarkar and
                   Sri Gutam Giri,
                   Advoates.
                  

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  17.11.15

J U D G M E N T

            This is a complainant U/S 12 of the Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Ac')  filed by the complainant, Sri Subir Laskar S/o- Lt. Jagneswar Laskar and Smt. Sova Laskar, W/o- Sri Subir Laskar, both residents of Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.P., The Branch Manager, Rose Valley(Real Estate & Construction Ltd.), R.M.S. Chowmuni, Agartala over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.P. 

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainants became members of MIS Scheme floated by the O.P. company by making single deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-on 06.04.09. They continued to get Rs.15,00/- per month as interest for the last 5 years till 2014 as per terms of the scheme. The Policy was matured on 06.04.14. On maturity, they were entitled to get the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. But the O.P. company did not pay back the principal amount within the promised time. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service.
    
3.        The complaint was contested by the O.P. by filing written objection. In the written objection, the O.P. gave evasive reply to the allegations made by the complainant. Nothing material has come out from the averments of the O.P. to controvert the allegations made in the complaint.

4.        In support of the case, the complainant No.1 has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit-1- Certificate dated 06.04.09 issued by the O.P. and 
    Exhibit 2- Acknowledgment slip dated 06.04.09.

5.        No primary or secondary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P.

    Findings:
6.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.P. company was deficient in rendering service to the complainants.

7.        We have already heard argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainants meticulously.

8.        It appears that the complainants made deposit with the O.P. company, namely Rose Valley (Real Estates and construction Ltd.) under MIS scheme in response to the offer from the company inviting deposits from the general public with the promise of good returns. Being attracted by the assurance given by the O.P. company, the complainants made single deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.04.09 vide application no- D08242021 and the scheme was likely to be matured on 06.04.14. There can not be any doubt about that promising good returns and promoting repayment on maturity is 'the provider in service' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainants being the investors with the O.P. company are consumers within the meaning of Section2(1)(d) of the Act.

9.        It is seen from the pleading as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainants that the O.P. company failed to repay the assured amount of the scheme subscribed by the complainants within the promised time. The certificate dated 06.04.09(Exhibit-1) issued by the O.P. company indicates that the complainants booked plot/ flat/bunglow/shop/commercial unit being developed by the O.P. company by making payment of a single deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-.  It is alleged by the complainants that though it is stipulated in the certificate that it is issued for booking of plot, flat etc., in reality it is a MIS scheme in disguise and they continued to receive monthly interest @15,00/- per month till 2014. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the above said contention of the complainants since there is nothing on record to discard their assertion. As it appears, the O.P. company neither allotted any plot of land/ flat etc. as assured in favour of the complainants nor returned the principal amount within the promised time. It is well settled that non return of the matured amount within the promised time certainly amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. The O.P. company by not allotting plot of land/ flat etc. or returning the principal amount as assured within the promised time adopted unfair trade practice and thus was deficient in rendering service. 

10.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed. The O.P. is directed to return the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) with interest @12 % P.A. as promised from the date of maturity of the amount on 06.04.14. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) to the complainants as compensation for causing their mental anxiety and harassment with Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand) as cost of litigation. The O.P. will pay the entire amount within 45 days from today, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 15% P.A. till the payment is made in full.  

11.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.