Judgment : Dt.4.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one (1) Mahua Nath, wife of Sri Dipendu Nath, Kolkata-700 061 (2) Dipendu Nath, son of Late Bishnu Pada Nath, both are residing at 52, Gule Para Road, Bakultala, P.O.-Sarsuna, P.S.-Parnashree, Kolkata-700 061 against The Director, Alchemist, 15, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700 013, OP No.1, Alchemist Infra Realty Limited, Behala Branch, 93,Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700 008, OP No.2 and The Alchemist Infra Realty Limited, 411-412, Ansal Tower-38, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019, OP No.3,  praying for a direction upon the O.P. to refund Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and also a direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that one Sri Nitya Nanda Ghosh booked a certificate of property of Rs.1,50,000/- with OP on 25.1.2012, which was to mature on 04.1.2014 and the Complainant is the legal heir of the purchaser of the said certificate. After maturity Complainant requested the OP to release the total amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. But the OPs avoided it. OPs paid a nominal sum to the Complainant as interest, but did not refund Rs.1,50,000/-. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OPs did not file written version and contest the case and so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

            On perusal of the copy of certificates filed by the Complainant, it appears that he has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the OP and he used to receive monthly interest.

            In this regard, it also appears that original certificate No.AIRL/RX00018227 whose maturity date is 4.1.2015 further has already been received by OPs. After expiry of the term on 4.1.2015 Complainant requested for refund of Rs.1,50,000/-. But OPs did not oblige.

            It appears that maturity date of certificate mentioned in complaint petition is 4.1.2014. No explanation is forthcoming as to whether Complainant filed the copy of the Certificate wrongly which ought not have been filed. It might be that Complainant is having certificate whose expiry was 4.1.2014. So, this discrepancy can only be corrected by Complainant and the Complainant cannot be awarded relief on the basis of discrepancy appearing in certificate and complaint petition relating to date of maturity.

Hence,

ordered

              CC/426/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.