West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/60/2017

Gita Kundu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subal Chakraborty

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.60/2017

 

                          Gita Kundu, W/o late Sushil Kundu, Sujagunj, Midnapur, West Bengal, PIN-721101.…..….………Complainant

Versus

1. The Director, Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd, 18, Ground Floor, Omaxe Square Jasola, District Centre, New Delhi, PIN-110025,
2. Branch Manager, Alchemist Ltd. Midnapur, Sepoy Bazar,  Midnapore Town,     P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur, (W), PIN-721101,
3. The Regional Manager, Alchemist Ltd, HM Building (4^th Floor), 15, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, P.S. Bowbazar, Kolkata-700013

…………………………………………………….Ops.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Subal Chakraborty, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  xxxxxxxxxxx                     

                                                                    Decided on: - 30/06/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Gita Kundu alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.Ps.

 

Contd………..P/2

                                         

                                             

                                           ( 2 )

                   Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with the O.P. no.1 through O.P. No.2 under the Monthly Income Scheme launched by the O.P. and same was matured on  10/04/2016. It is stated in the petition of complaint that after maturity of the said  investment the complainant claimed the maturity amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by depositing original Certificate and other relevant documents but the O.P. No.2 did not disburse the said amount. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the O.P. no.2, even after maturity date of the said investment did not disburse the said amount though the complainant on repeated occasions requested him to disburse the said amount and thereafter by serving a legal notice dated 17/02/2017 upon the O.Ps.  but to no avail. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to pay Rs.3,00,000/- along with 10% interest from the date of maturity, to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony, to pay the  amount of Rs.10,000/- for the cost of litigation.

                  The complainant has annexed photocopy of the said certicificate.

                  Notices were duly served upon the O.Ps. but they did not turn up so the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.Ps.

                Complainant adduced evidence through written examination-in-chief duly supported by affidavit and during her evidence three documents are marked as exhibit 1 to 3 respectively.  

Decisions with reasons.

         The complainant claimed to have deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- initially and thereafter a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with the O.Ps under Monthly Interest Scheme.  Annexed copy of the deposited certificate showed that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the O.P. in total.  It is further evident from the deposited certificate that the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was refundable on 10/04/2016. It is therefore, evident that the O.Ps.  have deviated from the promise of disbursement of the deposited amount. However, section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act runs as follows, deficiency means any fault, imperfection,  shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contact or otherwise in relation to any service. Therefore, it is very much clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. We hold that from unchallenged evidence adduced by the complainant it is evident that the said amount is also payable on the date of maturity of the deposited amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

 

Contd………..P/3

                                                                                     

                                          ( 3 )

 

Since the said amount is lying with the O.Ps., the complainant, as per our assessment, is entitled to  get Rs.5,000/- for compensation and further since  the inaction on the part of

the O.Ps. has compelled the complainant to file the instant case the O.Ps. are liable to pay cost of litigation which as per our assessment is Rs.7,500/-.

            In the result the consumer complaint succeeds.

                                      Hence, it is,

ORDERED

                                                             that consumer complaint case being no.60/2017 is allowed ex-parte with cost.

                  The O.Ps. are directed to refund jointly and severally the deposited amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a.from the date of maturity of the amount till realization.  O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.7,500/- towards cost of litigation within one month from the date of communication of this order with the O.Ps. failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. for the default period.

                Let plain copy of order be given to the complainant free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                      

                       

                          Member                                                                                             President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur