Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/366/2017

Shri Onkar Nath Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	366 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	25.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	31.10.2017

 

 

 

 

Sh.Onkar Nath Sharma, Senior Citizen, aged about 92 years, son of late Sh.Durga Das, resident of H.No.1081, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.    

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The Unitech Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.188-189-190 (First Floor), Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Managing Director / Executive Director/Directors/ Authorised  Signatory.

2]  The Unitech Limited, Registered Office : 6 Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi- 110 017 through its Managing Director/Executive Director/Directors/Authorised Signatory.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

 

Argued by :     Complainant in person.

     Ms.Vertika H.Singh, Adv. for OPs.

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant, a Senior Citizen aged 92 years, invested a sum of Rs.25,000/- with OPs in non-cumulative Fixed Deposit Scheme for a period of three years, against which FDR dated 5.1.2013 for Rs.25,000/- was issued by Opposite Parties for a period of 3 years at interest rate of 12.50% per annum with maturity date of 5.1.2016 (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the interest on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid on quarterly basis with effect from 5.1.2013 and the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- payable on maturity of FDR on 5.1.2016.  It is averred that the OPs have defaulted in making payment of interest of two quarters on scheduled dates i.e. from 5.7.2015 to 4.10.2015 of Rs.779/- and from 5.10.2015 to 4.1.2016 of Rs.779/- due on 5.10.2015 & 5.1.2016 respectively and also did not make payment of the principal amount of FDR of Rs.25,000/-.  It is also averred that the complainant send demand notice to the OPs but to no avail (Amnn.C-2), hence this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing him harassment and financial loss.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and took objection that as no cause of action ever took place within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh, therefore, this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it is submitted that the Opposite Party Company is facing immense financial crunch due to the global recession in the real estate sector.  It is also submitted that due to slump in the market, the investors have refrained from making any further investments and hence, the company could not make the payment of interest due to fund crunch.  It is stated that the OPs had approached the Company Law Board for re-scheduling of the payments and the offer was made by the company in order to adjust the amount due for payments to the complainant, which shows the bonafide of the Opposite Party Company despite severe cash crunch.  It is also stated that the offer was made in view of the observations made by the Company Law Board that the OPs Company did not have any kind of cash for the repayment of the FD amount.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

7]       The complainant vide duly sworn affidavit submitted that he deposited the cheque No.4718744, dated 4.1.2013 in the name of OPs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh  with regional office of OPs at SCO No.189-190-191, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160 017.  The OPs in the present complaint had failed to contradict this submission of the complainant by placing on record any adverse evidence to that effect. Thus, the version of the complainant can safely be relied upon that the complainant deposited the amount in question at the regional office of the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh. Therefore, this Forum has the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint and thus, the objection raised by the Opposite Parties in this respect is rejected. Further, on this issue, we are well guided by the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No.1005 of 2016 – Pukhrajdeep Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors, decided on 01.09.2016;

 

6]       On merits also, the claim of the complainant is upright and has not been refuted by the OPs in clear terms. In the present complaint, the age of the complainant is 92 years and the same is well settled by Out Patient Card issued by PGIMER, Chandigarh where the complainant is undergoing treatment as Senior Citizen (Ann.C-3). 

 

7]       It is an averment made in the replication filed on behalf of the complainant that the complainant is suffering from serious health problem and is in dire need of money.  In view of the circumstances, it is observed that despite considering the case of the complainant on sympathetic ground, the Opposite Parties are adamant to raise frivolous and flimsy pleas, just to deny the genuine claim of the complainant.  This unscrupulous behavior of the OPs is not only an act of deficiency, but also amounts to indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.

 

8]       From the discussion above, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties has been proved. Therefore, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties are directed as under:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.779/-, along with interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum from due date i.e. 5.10.2015 till realization, to the complainant;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.779/-, along with interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum from due date i.e. 5.1.2016 till realization, to the complainant;
3. To refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum from due date i.e. 5.1.2016 till realization

 

4. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficient service and for indulging into unfair trade practice by Opposite Parties;

 

5. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount of compensation from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (a) (b) (c) & (e) above.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

 

31^st October, 2017                 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                          Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

          Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER