Date of filing: 05/09/2018
Date of Judgement: 18/12/2019
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member
This petition of complainant is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Geetha Laxman alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties (referred as OP hereinafter) (1) The Director Alchemist Township India Ltd. (2) The Branch Manager, Alchemist Township India Ltd.
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being satisfied with the good will of OP No.1, who used to run business for Marketing Real Estate, deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakh) with OP no.1 through OP No.2 as MIS fixed deposit for a period of 36 months out of Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- from 13.04.2015 to 13.04.2018 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from 7.01.2014 to 7.01.2017 and the OP No.2 handed over two certificates dated 28.01.2014 & 4.05.2015 and verbally promised to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant. The complainant has stated that she received monthly interest from the OP No.2 for few months. The complainant has further stated that she visited the office of OP on several occasions for disbursement of maturity amount along with interest but the office was found closed and by a letter dated.16.07.2018 requested the OP No.1 for treating the certificate as surrendered and to disburse the said maturity amount but inspite of receiving said letter the OP No.1 did not take any step to refund the amount and, therefore, the complainant sent the said letter to the OP No.2 but the letter returned to the complainant with postal endorsement “Addressee Left” and finding no other way the complainant by filing the instant consumer complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to disburse maturity amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, to pay Rs. 36,000/- towards interest, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The complainant annexed certificates dated 28.01.2014 & 4.05.2015 payment advice dated 13.01.2016 & 7.01.2016. Track report, letter dated 16.07.2018 issued by the complainant.
Notice was served but the OP No.1 did not turn up. So the case proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.12.2018.
The OP No.2 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 property and/or investment made in respect of the same which tantamount to ‘suit for land’ and/or ‘investment’. Hence this case is not maintainable before this Forum and further stating that the complainant has failed to file a single paper to substantiate her claim regarding payment of interest. It is stated by the OP No.2 that the Complainant has not filed any claim for disbursement of maturity amount.
The complainant filed evidence in respect of which the OP No.1 filed questionnaire and the complainant filed reply. Similarly the OP No.1 filed evidence but the complainant did not file questionnaire.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant narrated the facts.
Points for determination:
- Whether the case is maintainable.
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OP.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
The Complainant claimed to have deposited Rs.2,00,000/- by cash to the Opposite Party No.1 through the Opposite Party No.2 in a fixed deposit scheme for a period of 36 months.
The Opposite Party No.2 by filing written version has stated that the instant dispute is related to property which tantamount to ‘suit for land’ or ‘investment’ and, therefore, is not maintainable before this Forum.
On perusal of certificates being Nos. TA 00315557 bearing Customer ID No.TY00006287 & TA02741327 bearing Customer ID No.TYY0069593 it appears that the Complainant namely Geetha Laxman and one Sundaraier Laxman being joint applicant obtained the said certificates. However, said Sundaraier Laxman has not been impleaded as party though he is joint applicant to the said certificates. Although the matter has been pointed out to the Complainant at the time of argument but no necessary step has been taken by the Complainant. In our view, said Sundaraier Laxman is a necessary party to the instant case and in absence of necessary party the instant consumer complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and, thus is not maintainable. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Since Point No.1 is decided negative, there is no scope to go into the merit of the case.
In the result the consumer complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the consumer complaint being No.CC/536/2018 is dismissed on contest against Opposite Party No.2 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No.1.
