Date of filing : 01.06.2018
Date of Judgement: 20.02.2020
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon,ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 by Subir Pal 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.
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being satisfied with the goodwill of the OP No.1 who runs business for Marketing Real Estate deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- with the OP No.1 through the OP No.2 in a Fixed deposit Scheme for the period from 14.02.2011 to 14.02.2017 and received assurance to get Rs. 10,000/- on maturity. The complainant has stated that a certificate bearing No. AIRL/RD00167257 was issued in favour of the complainant by the OP for deposit of the said Rs. 5,000/- The complainant has further stated that he sent a Demand Notice on 01.03.2018 to the OP claiming disbursement of maturity amount of Rs. 10,000/- but the OPs paid no heed to the request and therefore, finding no other way the complainant by filing the instant petition has prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund maturity amount of Rs. 10,000/-, to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation & Rs. 2000/- as cost of litigation.
The complainant annexed certificate of property bearing no. AIRL/RD00167257. Letter issued from the ends of the complainant.
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 consumer complaint has been filed in respect of a dispute relating to a property and/or investment made in respect of the same tantamount to suit for land and/or investment. Hence, this case is not maintainable before this Forum and, further, the complainant has failed to file even a single paper to substantiate his claim regarding sending any letter to the OPs and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case.
The complainant adduced evidence and the OP No.1 prayed for treating the written version as its evidence, the prayer was allowed. Both parties filed their respective questionnaire. The complainant filed reply but the OP no.1 did not file any reply.
In course of argument the complainant narrated the facts. The OP did not appear to advance their argument.
Points for determination –
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reason
Point Nos. 1 & 2. : Both points re taken up for comprehensive discussion and decision. The complainant has claimed to have deposited Rs.5,000/- with the OPs in a fixed deposit scheme for six years and said deposit was made on 14.02.2011 and a certificate of property issued by the OP No.1. In support of such contention the complainant has filed a copy of certificate issued by the OP No.1 bearing No. AIRL/RD00167257 wherefrom it appears that an indenture was executed between the complainant and the OP company in respect of having proportionate undivided share in land admeasuring an area of 1760.20 Kanal at Behanta & Tila, Tehsil – Kolaras, Dist – Shivpuri Madhya Pradesh. It further appears from said certificate of property that in terms of Development Agreement dt. 14.02.2011 the complainant had paid Rs. 5,000/-.
Though the complainant claimed that he had deposited the amount in a fixed deposit scheme but certificate of property discloses that he deposited the amount for availing undivided proportionate share in a land and paid the amount inclusive of development charges for the said plot of land. It is also stated in the certificate that the estimated value of the said plot of land after development was expected to be not less than Rs.10,000/-. It is therefore evident that the OPs promised to deliver the said plot of land value of which not be less than Rs.10,000/- which has not been delivered. The OP No.1 never denied the fact that the amount has not been paid to the complaint. Under such state of affairs we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the maturity amount. Further, the complainant requested the OPs by sending letter to refund the maturity amount as the branch office was closed but the Ops paid no heed to that request which causes harassment to the complainant and, therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.
Point No. 1 & 2 are decided.
Hence,
Ordered
That CC/323/2018 is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and exparte against OP No.2 with cost. Ops are directed to disburse Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards cost of litigation within above mentioned period subject to handover of certificate bearing no. AIRL/RD00167257. If the OPs fail to disburse the same within said period of two months, the OPs shall have to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realisation of decreetal amount.
