Date of filing : 16.10.2017
Judgment : Dt.9.3.2018
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member
This is a complaint application under Section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) made by one Ranjan Kumar Gupta 12/A, Jagat Roy Chowdhury Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008 against the Director, Alchemist Township India Ltd. Building 23, Nehru Place, Near Allahabad Bank, New Delhi-110 019 (OP No.1) and the Branch Manager, Alchemist Township India Ltd., 145A, Diamond harbor Road, 2nd floor, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008 (OP No.2) praying for a direction upon OPs to refund the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- also a direction upon OPs to pay due interest @ Rs.500/- per month from the date 17.11.2015, till refund of the principal and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/-.
Facts 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 a branch office of OP No.1 deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.1 through OP No.2 by cash on 17.11.2015 for three years as MIS deposit and a cash receipt was issued. The Complainant was handed over a certificate being NoTA02583656 dt.8.12.2015 by OP No.2 and was verbally told to complainant that the deposit carries an interest @ 12% p.a. i.e. Rs.500/- payable against Inter office payment advice by OP No.1 which is to be encashed from OP No.2 but the later failed to pay for nonavailability of fund. The maturity date of the certificate is 17.11.2018 for which the petitioner had to wait for 15 months and which was not feasible for him. The OP No.2 received the original certificate No.TA02583656 dt.8.12.2015 from the Complainant for payment of interest. Since the OPs failed to pay interest by remaining silent despite receipt of the original certificate, Complainant lost faith to the credibility and uprightness of performance of OP and as such the Complainant do not want to continue with the deposit. So, Complainant has filed this case.
Notices were served to OPs. OP No.1 appeared by filing vakalatnama and a petition under Section 11 of C. P. Act challenging maintainability of this case but did not file written version. The said petition MA/134/2017 filed by OP No.1 was rejected by this Forum vide order No.6 dt.10.1.2018 and finally the matter was heard ex-parte vide order No.8 dt.13.2.2018.
Complainant has also mentioned that the he had earlier filed the same case in this Forum vide CC/308/2017 which was dismissed by this Forum for default on 11.9.2017 vide Order No.6 dt.11.9.2017.
Main point for decision is
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is deficiency in service by OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
On perusal of the records, it appears that Complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- to OP No.1 through OP No.2 by cash on 17.11.2015 for three years as MIS Deposit.
In this regard, a Xerox copy of money receipt which is duly notarised is filed by Complainant and so the Complainant is a consumer, accordingly point No.1 is decided.
Point Nos.2 & 3
The Complainant also filed a Xerox copy of a certificate of allotment No.TA02583656 dt.8.12.2015 from where it reveals that as per Complainant’s application the OPs will allot plot/villa/apartment in their housing project at Talwandi Bhi, Tehsil- Zeera Dist.- Firozpur, Punjab. The OPs have also stated that if not possible to allot in this project, they will offer plot/villa/apartment in other projects. If the same is not accepted by Complainant, the OPs will refund the value to Complainant which shall not be less than Rs.50,000/- along with compensation assessed by OPs. It is also mentioned in the certificate that OPs have clearly mentioned that Complainant may obtain refund prior to expiry of the period after deduction of taxes. In the regard, Complainant has also filed a copy of letter along with postal receipt addressed to OP No.1 clearly requesting the OP No.1 to refund Rs.50,000/- since no interest had been paid and such he would not continue with the deposit. Complainant has also filed few original cheques each Rs.500/- issued by OP No.1 along with the original money receipt. Complainant has also filed a copy of certificate with seal and signature of OP that OP has received both the original certificates.
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.
The Complainant has also prayed for interest of Rs.500/- on the principal amount from 17.11.2015 till full refund of principal amount along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/- which is exaggerated. As per the interest part is concerned, there is no evidence submitted by Complainant that OPs agreed to pay Rs.500/- except few copies of cheques of Rs.500/- filed by Complainant.
So we are of the view if a direction be given upon OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- alongwith a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- justice would be served. We do not find justified to pay interest, if we allow compensation.
Hence,
ordered
CC/580/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part.
OPs are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- only to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, in default the total amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till full realization. The liabilities of OPs are joint and several.
