Delhi

South Delhi

CC/298/2016

ROOP KHANNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/298/2016
( Date of Filing : 16 Sep 2016 )
 
1. ROOP KHANNA
K-62 HAUZ KHAS ENCLAVE NEW DELHI 110016
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. UNITECH LIMITED
6 COMMUNITY CENTER, SAKET NEW DELHI 110017
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MS. R S BAGRI PRESIDENT
  KIRAN KAUSHAL MEMBER
  NAINA BAKSHI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
none
 
For the Opp. Party:
none
 
Dated : 03 Oct 2018
Final Order / Judgement

                                                   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

 

Case No.298/2016

 

Sh.  Roop Khanna

Flat 201, K-62, Hauz Khas Enclave,

New Delhi-110016                                                            ….Complainant 

 

 

Versus

 

M/s Unitech Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

6, Community Centre,

Saket New Delhi-110017

 

Also at:

Unitech House L Block,

South City, Gurgaon-122001

Haryana                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

 

                                                  Date of Institution        :      16.09.2016        Date of Order      :       03.10.2018

 

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Memer

ORDER

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

 

As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant had invested the following amount in fixed deposit of OP:

 Sr. No.

In the name of

FDR No.

Date of investment

Amount Invested 

(Rs.)

Interest rate

(p.a.)

Maturity date

1.

Roop Khanna         

1017358

15.03.111

50,000/-

12%

05.03.14

2.

Roop Khanna         

1213795

30.03.13

1,00,000/-

12.50%

30.03.16

3.

Roop Khanna         

1241403

08.10.13

1,00,000/-

12.50%

08.10.16

4.

Roop Khanna         

1249134

28.02.14

90,000/-

12.50%

28.02.17

 

Complainant has stated that when the above FDRs were matured for encashment, the staff of the OP on some pretext or the other delayed the making of payment inspite of repeated phone calls to the office, the OP gave an assurance that the money would be paid soon but till date the complainant had not received any amount. The OP had initiated a petition before the Company Law Board and gave not only assurance but also affidavit stating that the OP would make the payment to depositors soon. After about two years of hearing with the Company Law Board, Company Law Board found that the OP was not serious in their assurances to the investors and passed a final order on 04.07.16 stating that the OP’s petition was dismissed and the investors have to move to the court to obtain their money back from the OP. It is stated that the complainant made several phone calls to the Company Law Board for assistance but till date the complainant had not received the amount from the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following reliefs:-

i.        to pay the maturity value of the fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.90,000/- alongwith 18% interest.

ii.       to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members (compensation).

iii.      to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the petition.

OP has been proceeded exparte.

Complainant has filed his affidavit in exparte evidence.  

We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the material placed before us.

Photocopies of FDRs are placed on record as Annexure -I to Annexure-IV. The complainant vide letter dated 07.07.16 sent a letter to the FD department of the OP for refund of the money as Annexure-IV. Annexure-VI relates to the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal dated 04.07.16.

Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

There is nothing on the record to show that the OP has paid the amounts of the FDR to the complainant. As per the FDR the OP is liable to pay interest @ 12% & 12.50% in FDR. Non-payment of FDR amount amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and accordingly we allow the complaint. The OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.2,90,000/- (Rs.1 lakh, Rs.1 lakh & Rs.90,000)  alongwith interest @ 12.50% per annum from the date of their maturity till realization and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and harassment undergone by him within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 15% per annum on the above said amount from the date of maturity of the FDR till realization.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter files be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on 03.10.18.

 
 
[HON'BLE MS. R S BAGRI]
PRESIDENT
 
[ KIRAN KAUSHAL]
MEMBER
 
[ NAINA BAKSHI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.