DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.08.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant was persuaded by the opposite party to avail the opportunity and being influenced deposited Rs.40,000/- only for one plot near Chandania Pahada Mouza, near Ambagada near Berhampur. The copy of the first receipt of Rs.1000/- only received by M/s Srinivas on dated 26.10.2002. After deposits of Rs.1000/- on 26.10.2002 the complainant further deposited Rs.39,000/- for which the O.P. issued spot receipt on different dates. After completion of payment Rs.40,000/- the complainant ran to O.P. for allotment of plot as agreed. As per agreement of the O.P. the prime objective of the scheme is to sell plots to the subscribers on easy monthly installment basis with the provision of presenting sales promotion gifts to 30 lucky subscribers through drawn out of the total minimum numbers of subscriber of 300 plots at least. The size of the plot measured 40’X50’ i.e. two thousand square feet, price of each plot is Rs.40,000/-. Further it was agreed applicant paying Rs.40,000/- per plot in lump sum at a time shall avail 10% discount at the time of booking. The provision of the scheme, the complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- for a plot in size 40’X50’ i.e. two thousand square feets. Even after running time and again to the O.P. from village Sheragada to Berhampur, the O.P. neither registered the plot in question nor refunds the money. Finding no other alternative the complainant issued notices to the O.P. on various dates, the last being on 26.11.2018. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund Rs.40,000/- only with 12% interest per annum, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- in the best interests of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issue notice to the Opposite Party. The delay was condoned in the case.
4. The Opposite Party appeared and filed Vakalatanama through its advocate on dated 04.01.2013 but did not turn up to file either written version or evidence on affidavit in its favour in this case.
5. On the date of hearing the advocate for the complainant is present. On perusal of the case record and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is revealed that, after deposits of Rs.1000/- on 26.10.2002 the complainant further deposited Rs.39,000/- for which the O.P. issued spot receipt on different dates. After payment Rs.40,000/- by the complainant ran to O.P. for allotment of plot as agreed but all in vain. The O.P. did not file any written version in the present case after given ample of opportunities to file appropriate steps.
Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.
Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy - Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment - Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practices - OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
Considering the factual aspects of the case of the complainant, the commission allowed the complaint against the O.P for unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.
The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- with 9% interest per annum with effect from 26.10.2002 together with Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 07.11.2012 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 20.08.2024.
