DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. 06_ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING : 10.01.2017    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:12.03.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT      :  Shri Ram Chandra Bose, son of late Nanigopal Bose of Garia Mahamayapur School Road, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1. M/s Teachers’Welfare Credit & Holding Limited, represented by its Managing Director, H.O Office :10/99, Bijoygarh, P.S Jadavpur, Kolkata – 92.

                                     2.    Branch Manager, M/s Teachers’Welfare Credit & Holding Limited, Garia Branch, Garia Station Road, P.S Sonarpur, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 84.

                                     3.   Shri Gopal Dutta, Director, M/s Teachers’Welfare Credit & Holding Limited, 10/99, Bijoygarh, P.S Jadavpur, Kol- 92.

_____________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

Tobe brief, the complainant’s case is that he invested Rs.1 lacs on different dates with the Financial Institution i.e O.P-1 in the name of his wife, son and daughter into Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) of O.P-1 Institution. Interest amount was paid to him by the said Institution month by month and thereafter it stopped payment of interest on and from April, 2015. Doubtful, complainant demanded return of invested sum from the said Institution , and accordingly he was asked to deposit the policies issued in his favour from O.P-1. Policies were deposited by the complainant before the said Institution and five cheques of Rs.20,000/- each were also issued on different dates by the said Institution in favour of the complainant to make payment of the money invested by the complainant. But the cheques were dishonoured for insufficient fund. So, the complainant has come up before this

Forum with the filing of the instant case , alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps with a prayer for issuing a direction to them to refund Rs.1 lac with 10% interest and payment of Rs. 25000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Hence, this case.

          The O.P nos. 1 and 2 have not turned up to contest the case.

          It is O.P-3 who has made appearance in the case and has also filed written statement to contest herein. But the written statement filed by O.p-3 is found to be nothing but a series of denials only. It has no positive case made out therein.

          Upon the averments of the parties following issues are formulated for consideration in this case.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1.   Are the O.Ps liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES:

          The complainant has filed affidavit in chief which is kept in the record. He has also filed reply to the questionnaire filed on behalf of the O.P-3. But O.P-3 has not filed any evidence herein.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point nos. 1 and 2 :-

          It is the case of the complainant as made out in the petition of complaint which has been treated as his evidence, that he having been enticed by the O.P-3 invested Rs.1 lac in MIS Scheme of O.P-1 in the name of himself, his wife, son and daughter. It is also stated by him in the petition of complaint that he received interest month by month for several months and since April 2015, payment of interest was stopped to him by the O.P-1. He has filed the Xerox copies of policies issued in his favour by the O.P-1. He has also filed Xerox copies of the endorsement of the bank and it is seen therefrom that the cheques were dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient fund in the account of O.P-1. The O.P-3 has not filed any evidence to contradict the evidence of the complainant. Similarly O.P nos. 1

and 2 have also chosen not to file any written statement or any evidence to controvert the evidence of the complainant. Regards being had to this aspect, it is found that the evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged and by this unchallenged evidence of the complainant it stands established that the complainant invested Rs.1 lac with the O.Ps and that no interest whatsoever has been paid to the complainant by the O.P on and from April , 2015. The complainant has certainly undergone a tremendous harassment and mental agony as an ordinary person  would have suffered in the similar case of non-payment of his hard earned money by any Financial Institution. So, the complainant, in the above facts and circumstances is deemed entitled to get the relief and the order is passed according as hereunder.

          In the result, the case succeeds in part.

          Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against O.P-3 and exparte against the O.P nos. 1 and 2 with cost of Rs.5000/-.

The O.Ps , who will remain jointly and severally liable, are directed to make payment of Rs. 1 lac i.e the amount invested by the complainant with them, to the complainant with 10% interest thereon since April 2015 till the date of this judgment ,  to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with cost as referred to above within a month of this order, failing which the decreetal amount , the compensation amount and the amount of litigation cost as referred to above will bear interest @ 9% p.a till full realisation thereof.       

Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.

Dictated and corrected by me

                                                                                                President

We / I    agree.

                             Member                Member