West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/33/2017

Baby Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Alchemist Township India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subal Chakraborty

22 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.33/2017

 

Baby Kar, W/o-Himadri Sekhar Kar,

Shib Bazar, Mallick Chawk, Midnapur Town, P.S.-Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

1. The Director, Alchemist Township (I) Ltd., Alchemist House, Building No.23, 411/412, Ansal Tower-38, Nehru Place, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019;
2. B.M., Alchemist Township (I) Ltd., Sepoy Bazar,  Midnapore Town,     P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;

…………………………………………………….Ops.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Subal Chakraborty, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  xxxxxxxxxxx                     

                                                                    Decided on: - 22/06/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – The instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Baby Kar 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.14,000/- 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  01/07/2016. It is stated in the petition of complaint that after maturity of the said  investment the complainant claimed the maturity amount of Rs.14,000/- 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 through the complainant on repeated occasions requested him to disburse the said amount and thereafter by serving a legal notice dated 18/1/2017 upon the O.Ps.  but to no avail. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to pay Rs.14,000/- 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 money receipt memo and said payment advices.

                  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 his evidence three documents are marked as exhibit 1 to 3 respectively.  

Decisions with reasons.

         The complainant claimed to have deposited an amount of Rs.14,000/-. It is further evident from the deposit certificate the said amount of Rs.14,000/- was refundable on 01/7/2016. 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.14,000/- since the said amount is lying with the O.Ps., the complainant, as per our assessment is entitled to  get Rs.3,000/- for compensation and further since  the inaction on the part of

Contd………..P/3

                                                                                      

 

                                          ( 3 )

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.5,000/-.

            In the result the consumer complaint succeeds.

                                      Hence, it is,

ORDERED

                                                             that consumer complaint case being no.33/2017 is allowed ex-parte with cost.

                  The O.Ps. are directed jointly and severally to refund the deposited amount of Rs.14,000/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of maturity of the amount till realization. Ops. Are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- 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

                      Sd/- S. Sarkar                                Sd/- P.K. Singha                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                          Member                                           Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur