Date of filing : 01.06.2018
Judgment : Dt.9.12.2019
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Ram Prasad Mondal alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) (1) The Director, Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd. & Ors, (2) The Branch Manager, Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd.
The Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant being satisfied with the goodwill of the OP No.1 who used to run business for Marketing Real Estate, deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- with OP No.1 through the OP No.2 as fixed deposit for certain period and a certificate bearing No.AIRL RC 00473541 was issued in favour of the Complainant.
The Complainant has stated that he issued a letter to the OPs on 1.03.2018 asking for refund of maturity amount but in spite of receiving said letter the OPs did not bother to take any step to refund the maturity amount to the Complainant and being aggrieved, the Complainant, by filing the instant Consumer Complaint, prays for direction upon the OPs to refund maturity amount of Rs.14,000/-, to pay Rs.7,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
The Complainant annexed copies of certificate dt.11.12.2010 and letter dt.28.2.2018.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that the instant case is not maintainable. Since the dispute is property related dispute and no document has been deposited by the Complainant to the office of OPs asking for refund of maturity amount.
The Complainant adduced evidence. The OP cross examined the evidence by filing questionnaire and the Complainant filed reply.
However, no evidence was filed on behalf of the OP.
In course of argument, the Complainant was personally present and narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.
None appeared on behalf of OP.
Main points for determinations
- Whether Complainant is a consumer
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
The Complainant claimed to have deposited Rs.7,000/- with the OPs and he is entitled to get Rs.14,000/- on maturity.
In support of his averment, the Complainant files a copy of certificate being No.AIRL RCC00473541 wherefrom it appears that an indenture was executed between the Complainant and the OP Company on 20.11.2010 in respect of proportionate undivided share in a land and the original whereof has been deposited with the Company in terms of Development Agreement dt.20.11.2010. It further appears from said certificate that the Complainant paid Rs.7,000/- (Inclusive of development charges) and after development of said plot, estimated value of undivided share of plot would not be less than 14,000/- and expiry of tenure as mentioned therein is on 20.11.2016. It is, therefore, evident that the Complainant hired service in respect of Development of said plot and thus becomes consumer under the OP.
Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point Nos.2 & 3 – Both points are taken up for comprehensive discussion and decision. The Complainant has paid Rs.7,000/- to the OPs but he has not received undivided share of that land. It further appears from letter dt.28.2.2018 that the Complainant sent letter to the OPs to disburse the maturity amount. Though the certificate does not reflect that the amount has been deposited in a fixed deposit scheme, but, it is evident that the amount has been deposited for hiring some service from the OP. The OP by filing written version has stated that the instant dispute is a property dispute. However, no document has been filed in support of OP’s averment and furthermore the OP by filing written version even did not controvert the claim of the Complainant. Moreover, stated that the Complainant did not submit any claim before the OP, which suggests that the OPs were very much aware about the deposit and made promise to pay the maturity amount on expiry of maturity date and non-payment of such maturity value amounts to deficiency in service.
The OPs did not adduce any evidence and failed to controvert the averment of the Complainant.
As regards prayer for reliefs, the Complainant prayed for refund of maturity amount, in our view the prayer may be allowed.
Regarding compensation and litigation cost, we are of opinion that the Complainant sent letter to the OPs but they neglected to solve the grievance of the Complainant and compelled the Complainant to file the instant case and, therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation and litigation cost.
Point Nos.2 & 3 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant succeeds in part.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/324/2018 is allowed on contest against OP No.1and ex-parte against OP No.2. OPs are directed to disburse maturity value of Rs.14,000/- within two months from the date of this order subject to handover of the certificate being No.AIRL RC 00473541.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.7,000/- towards cost of litigation within above mentioned period in default the entire amount shall carry interest @9%p.a.
