SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint made by the complainants named above against the Branch Manager and Directors of Alchemist Township India Limited, Contai Branch, praying for a direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay the deposited amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-along with interest @ 10% from 25.09.2013 till realization, compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and other reliefs, if any.
In short, case of the Complainants is that the complainants invested a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the OP No. 2 through OP No.1 on 31.12.2013 for some monthly returns, being Certificate No. TA01591000. The Ops did not pay the monthly returns nor the principle amount till now. Date of maturity of said deposit was 31/12/2016. The complainant deposited all the papers on 09.01.17 and demanded the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Ops, but they declined to pay the same.
Hence the case.
Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties but none of them appeared to contest the case. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OPs.
Point to be considered in this case is whether or not the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by her.
Decision with reasons
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. From the copy of receipt issued by the OP no.2 dated 21.01.14, signed by the Director CS Jolly, it is seen that the OPs received an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainants and the expiry date of the tenure is 31.12.2016. The amount has been stated to be have been received on the basis of an application of the complainants expressing their interest to acquire a plot/villa/apartment in their house project at Park Avenue Talwandi District Firozpur, Punjab.
In this case it appears that sham paper transaction has been created in order to take deposit of money from the presumably illiterate persons. Consumer Forum being a beneficial legislation, here president cannot overlook this type of transaction Forum cannot overlook that in this way some companies are taking money from the poor people and filling up their iron chest.
Ld advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant along with many persons have been cheated by the Co. They did not get any offer document from the Opposite Parties. except the receipt /certificate as above. They have invested money with the Co. on the assurance that they would get maximum value after the maturity period. But they have not received said amount.
In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 (Supreme court) Hon’ble Justice of Madan B. Lakur observed in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis a vis the supplier of service or goods. It is to overcome this advantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of CPAct 1986 was enacted by a Parliament.
In view the aforesaid decisions and on the basis of the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint supported by affidavit, it is clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer under the C P Act 1986 and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. according to the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Hon’ble National Commission of India held that technicalities will not be looked into very seriously while dealing with the consumer case.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That CC/490 of 2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.
Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest @10% per annum from 25.09.2013 till final realization and compensation of Rs. 3000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay Rs 100/- per day as punitive charge till full satisfaction of the award. This charge will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let the copies of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
