Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/217/2016

Brij Bhushan Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Limited, Fixed Deposit Division - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	217/2016
Date of Institution	:	29.03.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.12.2016

 

                                       

                                               

1.     Brij Bhushan Mittal r/o H.No.1020, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh (Senior Citizen).

2.     Nirmla Mittal r/o H.No.1020, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh (Senior Citizen).

3.     Radhika Rani r/o H.No.1020, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

4.     Raman Mittal r/o H.No.1020, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

 

                                ...  Complainants.

Versus

1.     Unitech Limited, Fixed Deposit Division, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.136, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122016 through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.

 

2.     Unitech Limited, 6 Community Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its M.D./Authorized Signatory.

 

3.     R.R.Investor’s Capital Service Pvt. Ltd., (earlier at SCO -222-223, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh) now at SCO 89, First Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh through Director/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.Harsh Nagra, Advocate for OP No.3

                OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainants is that they deposited Rs.25,000/- each in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs  No.1 and 2 on 20.06.2013, 06.09.2013 & 18.09.2013, carrying interest @ 11.50% p.a. through OP No.3 for one year vide FDRs (Annexure C-1 to C-4).   The said FDRs were to be matured on 18.09.2014, 20.06.2014, 06.09.2014 & 20.06.2014 respectively.  On the advice of OPs No.1 and 2, they handed the original FDRs to OP No.3 for repayment.  Thereafter, they requested the OPs to refund the maturity amount of the FDRs but to no effect. Ultimately, they got served a legal notice dated 06.11.2015 upon OP No.1 to refund the fixed deposit amounts with up-to-date interest but all in vain.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Parties No.1  & 2failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.05.2016.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.3 pleaded that it was acting only as an agent of the OPs No.1 and 2 and as such it was not liable for their acts.  It has further been pleaded that at no point of time, it assured for the payment of the maturity amount. It was denied that the complainant ever sent any e-mail notice to it or contacted it in any manner much less telephonically.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         In evidence, the complainants have filed their respective duly sworn affidavits with the supporting documents. In their respective affidavits, they have reiterated the averments as made in the complaint.    It is established from Annexures C-1 to C-4 i.e. FDRs that the complainants have deposited Rs.25000/- each with OP No.1 and 2  in the fixed deposit scheme, carrying interest @ 11.50% p.a. and the said FDRs were to mature on 18.09.2014, 20.06.2014, 06.09.2014 & 20.06.2014 respectively.  The complainants have specifically deposed in their respective affidavits that OPs No.1 and 2 failed to pay the maturity amounts with up-to-date interest despite service of legal notice, Annexure C-5. In our considered view, non-refund of the maturity amounts on the maturity of the FDRs itself amounts to deficiency in service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.
6.         Furthermore, OPs No.1 and 2 despite due service did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or have nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, OPs No.1 and 2 are deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OPs No.1 and 2 and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To refund the maturity amount of the FDRs i.e. Rs.27,875/- (Annexure C-1 to C-4) to each of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective date of its maturity till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

8.         The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09.12.2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER