RITA MEHTA vs MAXWORTH ORCHARDS INDIA LTD.

RITA Mehta, the complainant, has filed the present complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring that she had invested a sum of Rs. 9,29,000/- out of her husbands NRI earnings with the opposite party (for short the O.P), in the various schemes/projects launched by the O.P. from time to time. The details of the schemes/projects in which the complainant had invested the above-mentioned amount have been given in Annexure -1, annexed to the complaint. It is stated in the complaint, filed by the complainant, that the O.P. neither allotted the promised land nor the sale deed was got executed in 180 days as per the agreement, executed between the parties. It is stated that in response to a registered letter, dated 28th December, 1998, the O.P. advised the complainant to contact its NOIDA office in February, 1999. It is stated that the NOIDA office of the O.P. had not been opened till the date of filing the complaint, i.e. 16th November, 1999. It is stated that the O.P. has committed breach of trust in neither allotting the plots of land as promised nor has refunded the hard earned money invested by the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., it has been prayed that O.P. be directed to return the amount invested amounting to Rs. 9,29,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

A notice of the above-mentioned complaint was issued to the O.P. and service of the notice was directed to be effected on the O.P. Dasti also. In compliance with the order passed by this Commission, the complainant had taken the process Dasti and got the same served and thereafter had filed an affidavit of service, dated 2nd March, 2000. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit of service, dated 2nd March, 2000 and the accompanying document, this Commission, vide order dated 27th July, 2000, treated the service as proper service and gave four weeks time to the O.P. for filing written version. As the O.P., despite service, in the manner stated above, neither cared to appear nor cared to file any reply/written version, the O.P. vide order dated 19th March, 2002, was directed to be proceeded ex parte in the proceedings and the complainant was directed to file affidavit by way of evidence. The complainant in support of her case has adduced evidence by means of affidavit and has filed her own affidavit dated 31st october, 2002 by way of evidence. We have heard the complainant at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In her affidavit, dated 31st October, 2002 filed by way of evidence the complainant, Smt. Rita Mehta, has stated on oath that she had deposited a sum of Rs. 9,29,000/- with the O.P. against proper receipts (photocopies annexed with the said affidavit). It is also stated in the above said affidavit that the O.P. failed to return the money deposited by the complainant and thereby committed breach of the agreement, executed between the parties. The averments, made in the complaint, stand fully corroborated by affidavit dated 31.10.2002 filed by the complainant by way of evidence. The facts stated in the above said affidavit have gone on record unrebutted and unchalleged, which we see no reason to disbelieve.

In view of the position explained above, the complaint filed by the complainant, deserves to be allowed. The O.P. in the given facts is decidedly guilty of deficiency in service as the O.P. has not refunded the money deposited by the complainant with the O.P. The O.P. is, therefore, directed to refund the amount of Rs. 9,29,000/- to the complainant, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The O.P. shall pay to the complainant another sum of Rs. 2,500/- by way of cost of litigation. The payment in terms of the above order be made by the O.P. to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to file an application under Section 25/27 of the Act, for the implemention of this order as the complainant may be advised. The above, mentioned complaint, filed by the complainant, stands disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.