Judgment : Dt.31.8.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Chhanda Chowdhury, C-72, Amarabati, Sodepur, P.S.-Khardah, Dist.- 24 Parganas (N), Kolkata-700 110, against – (1) The Director, Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd., Unit No.GF-18, Ground Floor, Omaxe Square, Jasola District Centre, South Delhi-110 025, OP No.1 and (2) The Regional Manager, Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd., 145A, Diamond Habour Road, 2nd fl., P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to refund Rs.60,000/-, and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Facts in brief are that OP No.1 runs a business of marketing real estate and OP No. is a branch office of OP No.1. Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- to OP No.1 in cash. Complainant, further, has stated that on 25.11.2011 OP told the Complainant that an interest of 12% p.a. would be paid monthly. In and around last of December, 2011 OP No.2 handed over a certificate of property allotment dt.16.12.2011, which matured on 25.11.2014. OP No.2 paid monthly interest for about 36 months. Complainant visited Kolkata branch office on several occasions. But, OPs did not oblige. In the third week of May, 2015, OP No.2 gave a cheque No.094437 dt.25.5.2015 for Rs.60,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank towards the maturity of principal amount. But the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement ‘insufficient fund’. Subsequently, Complainant brought this matter to OP No.2. OP No.2 requested Complainant to return the cheque and they assured Complainant that the amount would be paid through RTGS. Complainant awaited till date. But the amount was not paid. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it is stated that this Forum does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Further, it is stated that Complainant’s complaint is baseless and false. It is also stated that OP No.2 did not refund Rs.60,000/-. On the basis of this, OPs have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed. Thereafter, OP No.2 & 3 filed questionnaire and Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP did not file evidence and so the case was heard for argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.60,000/-. One Xerox copy of the certificate issued by OP is filed, which reveals that Complainant has purchased a certificate which matured on 25.11.2014 and the amount was Rs.60,000/-. Further, it appears that OP issued a cheque of Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant and this establishes that there was transactions between Complainant and OP and OP is bound to refund Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant.
Complainant has admitted that she received interest for some months. Accordingly, we are of the view that if OPs are directed to refund Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant, justice would be served. Further, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost are needed to be awarded in favour of the Complainant.
Hence,
ordered
CC/89/2017 is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to refund Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order and they are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant within this period, provided Complainant files original certificate. If the total amount of Rs.75,000/- is not paid within two months, this amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order.
