Date of filing : 16.10.2017
Judgment : Dt.9.3.2018
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member
This is a complaint under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) made by Ranjan Kumar Gupta, 12A, Jagat Roy Chowdhury Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008, against the Director, Alchemist Township India Ltd, Building 23, Behru Place, Near Allahabad Bank, New Delhi-110 019 (OP No.1) and The Branch Manager, Alchemist Township India Ltd., 145A, Diamond Harbour Road, 2nd floor, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008 (OP No.2) praying for directions upon the OPs to refund the total maturity amount of Rs.30,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Fact in brief are that Complainant being satisfied with the goodwill of OP No.1 who runs business for marketing Real Estate and other similar type of products and OP No.2 is the branch office of OP No.1, deposited a total sum of Rs.30,000/- as fixed deposits with OP No.1 through OP No.2 against which two certificates No.TA01213817 and TA01213831 were issued by OPs and both were surrendered at the office of OP No.2 on 21.4.2017 for returning the maturity amount. Thereafter, the OPs remained silent to refund the maturity amount even after receipt of letters.
Since the OPs failed and neglected to return the maturity value of deposits, so Complainant filed this case.
Notices were served upon OPs but did not file written version. Finally, the case proceeded ex-parte against OPs vide Order No.8 dt.13.2.2018. Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the complaint petition. Complainant has also mentioned in his petition of complaint that he has filed a consumer Complaint being No. CC/309/2017 which was dismissed by this Forum on 11.9.2017 for default.
Main points for determinations
- Whether Complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
On perusal of the documents filed by Complainant, it appears that OPs issued two certificates No.TA01213817 & TA01213831 which reveal that Complainant was to get not less Rs.10,000/- on 10.3.2016 and Rs.20,000/- on 1.7.2016 respectively. In this regard, Complainant has filed both Xerox copies of surrendered certificates but did not file any copies of money receipts issued by OPs.
It also appears that Complainant has mentioned in his petition of complaint (Para 3) that he deposited total Rs.30,000/- and in same para he has mentioned that he deposited Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and the maturity for the same is Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/-.
Although Complainant has not filed any money receipts issued by OPs, but it can be well considered that Complainant has paid money to OPs otherwise OPs would not have issued two certificates bearing No.TA01213817 & TA01213831 in favour of Complainant stating clearly that Complainant has booked for a plot/villa/apartment and in the event of non-acceptance he is entitled for the refund not less than Rs,.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively on maturity and as such Complainant is a consumer.
Although the Complainant has mentioned in his petition that after the maturity dates, certificates were surrendered by him on 21.4.2017 at the office of OP No.2 for refund of the maturity amount. But, surprisingly it appears that both the certificates have been filed by the Complainant, that means there are latches on the part of the Complainant also.
Since the OPs did not contest the case by filing written version except a petition for maintainability, therefore, the evidence adduced by the Complainant has remained unchallenged and unrebutted and thus we hold there is a deficiency on part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.
Thus point No.ii and No.iii are answered accordingly.
Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.
In our view, if a direction be given upon OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- justice would be served. We do not find justified for allowing any compensation to be paid to Complainant since he has not surrendered the original certificates to the OP for refund but surprisingly mentioned in the petition that he has surrendered both the certificates for refund.
Hence,
ordered
CC/581/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part.
OPs are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- in default the total amount shall carry interest @ 10%p.a. from the date of this order till full realisation.
