
View 2284 Cases Against Unitech
Purple Zebra Ideas Pvt Ltd filed a consumer case on 30 Dec 2017 against Unitech Limited and Others in the Bangalore 4th Additional Consumer Court. The case no is CC/695/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Jan 2018.
Complaint filed on: 06.05.2016
Disposed on: 30.12.2017
BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU
1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027
CC.No.695/2016
DATED THIS THE 30th DECEMBER OF 2017
SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER
SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER
Complainant/s: -
M/s.Purple Zebra Ideas Pvt ltd., 151, Udani layout,
Cambridge Road,
Ulsoor, Bengaluru-08.
Rep. by Sri.Rajshekhar,
Director
By Inperson
V/s
Opposite party/s
Respondent/s:-
Unitech Ltd.,
6, Community Center,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
Rep. by Sri.Ramesh Chandra, Chairman
Unitech ltd.,
1st floor, Sec.45,
B block, Greenwood city, Gurgaon-122001
Unitech ltd.,
C18-2, Jyothi complex,
134/1, Infantry road,
Bengaluru-01.
PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties no.1 to 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 to 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to reimburse the invested amount of Rs.3 lakhs, damages Rs.5 lakhs and legal fees of Rs.25,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he had invested a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in the fixed deposit scheme of Unitech ltd., on 18.10.2013 vide deposit receipt no.1242071, account no.1250386. Date of maturity was 10.10.2014. He received the interest of Rs.36,378/- on time. But in spite of repeated phone calls and visits to their Bengaluru office, his principal sum has not been returned. The Complainant has not received an assistance from the Bengaluru office. Three officials with whom he dealt with have all left the company. Hence prays to allow the complaint.
3. The Notice has been duly served on the Op.no.1 to 3, but they did not appear before this forum. Hence placed ex-parte.
4. To substantiate the case, the Director of the Complainant filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-A1 to A3 and also filed written arguments which is nothing but the repetition of facts stated in the complaint. Heard.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are:
6. Our answers to the above points are as under:
Point no.1: In the Affirmative.
Point no.2: As per the final order for the following
REASONS
7. Point no.1: In the forgoing paragraphs, we briefly stated the contents of the Complainant. It is the specific case of the Complainant that on 18.10.2013 vide deposit receipt no.1242071, account no.1250386 he had invested a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in the fixed deposit scheme of Unitech ltd. With regard to the interest is concerned, the Complainant had already received an amount of Rs.36,378/- on time. Now the only grievance of the Complainant is that even though the maturity period is already over in respect of fixed deposit amount, Op is not in a position to reimburse the principal sum of Rs.3 lakhs. In this context, he sent a letter to Op as per Ex-A1 to settle the matter within 15 days on receipt of the notice. It seems that no response by the Op. With regard to the deposit receipt is concerned, marked as Ex-A2, to substantiate the case of the Complainant, soon after the service of the notice, Op did not appear either deny the claim of the Complainant or to admit. Even though the notice have been duly served on Op, not dare enough to appear before this forum, which goes to show that they are watching the proceedings of this case sitting somewhere else. At this stage, we have no other go except to direct the Op to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs being the fixed deposit amount. In the light of the decision reported in Sherry Leasing pvt. ltd. V Kamini Saigal, I (2014) CPJ 139 (NC), wherein it is held as under:
Consumper Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Baking and financial institutions services- fixed deposit receipts – deposition of amounts – payment on maturity denied – deficiency of service – District forum directed Op to pay Complainants the balance amount FDR after adjusting amount already paid along with interest – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision- No defence on behalf of petitioner before District forum on merits – No infirmity or illegality in impugned order.
8. In the light of the decision cited supra, we are inclined to allow the complaint filed by the Complainant as the deficiency of service specifically proved by the Complainant. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.
9. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, we passed the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.
2. The Op.no.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/- within six weeks from the date of this order.
3. The liability is fastened on the Op.no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs + compensation of Rs.5,000/- + cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/- within six weeks from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and pronounced in the Open Forum on 30th December of 2017).
(SURESH.D)MEMBER | (ROOPA.N.R)MEMBER
|
(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT |
1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:
Sri.Rajshekhar, who being the Director of the complainant was examined.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex-A1 | Letter dtd.16.03.16 |
Ex-A2 | Deposit receipt dtd.18.10.13 |
Ex-A3 | Postal acknowledgement |
(SURESH.D)MEMBER | (ROOPA.N.R)MEMBER
|
(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT |
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.