DATE OF DISPOSAL: 30.01.2024

Smt. Saritri Pattanaik, Member (W)

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant is a self-employed and to have a plot of land for his family in future, the complainant being attracted to the lucrative returns and plot after seeing the advertisement and motivation of the representative of the O.Ps. In accordance to motivation through advertisement of O.Ps, the complainant submitted three applications on 14.08.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/- each in total Rs.3,00,000/- and acknowledging the deposits, the O.Ps issued customer ID Nos. TC00286131, TC00286132 and TC00286133 and also issued bond-cum-acknowledgement dated 28.08.2013 vide Nos: TA01187535, TA01187537 and TA01187540 through O.P.No.3 marked as Annexure A.  The Annexure-A- specifically declared benefits to the complainant after maturity on 26.04.2016.   Prior to maturity, O.P.No.3 has collected the original bond from the complainant on 13.01.2016 on behest of O.P.No.1 & 2 towards maturity case but so far the Opposite parties neither refund the benefits as mentioned in the Annexure-A nor allotted a plot/villa/apartment offered to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the O.P. No.3 in their office and O.P.No.1 & 2 through different via media but to no avail. In constraint, the complainant issued registered advocate notice dated 10.12.2018 posted on 05.01.2019 through India Post but the O.Ps did not choose to receive the same and it was returned to the complainant. Due to accident and damaged in spinal code and backbone, the complainant could not be able to move at all since 2016. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.30,000/- in the best interest of justice.

            3. The Commission admitting the case, issued notice to the opposite parties but neither the notice nor the AD card returned to the Commission and also the Opposite parties appeared in the case.

           4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant was present and heard on the point of issues of the Complaint. We perused the complaint petition and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on dated 14.08.2013 and will receive the maturity amount on 26.04.2016  from the O.Ps. Further, it is apparent from the record that, the complainant handed over the original bonds to the opposite party no.3 on 13.01.2016 to get back the matured amount on time. The complainant demanded the said matured amount by issuing of the Advocate Notice Dated: 10.12.2018 to the opposite parties. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, the Commission hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such the O.Ps are rendered deficient services. The Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90. 

          Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.

            On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the Commission allowed the complainant’s case partly against the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.3,00,000/-  only along with 9% interest per annum  to the complainant with effect from 26.04.2016 till the actual date of payment within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps. are also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 04.11.2019 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realisation of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.

                The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

             A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 30.01.2024