Sukhamay  Singha  Roy,

son of late Panchanan Singha Roy

of village – Majherati, P.O. Jadurberia,

P.S. Uluberia,  District –Howrah.------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

 Anukul Maiti,

Managing Director,

Icore Megal Mould India Ltd.,

subsidiary of Icore-e-Services Ltd.,

54/2, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai  Road, P.S. Park Street,

Kolkata – 700 016..---------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.         Complainant . Sri Sukhamay Singha Roy, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay the maturity amount of Rs.22,400/- towards his fixed  deposit kept with O.P.,  to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation costs and other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.         Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/-  to O.P., being an investment company, on 17/07/2012 for which O.P. issued money receipt being no. 26205938 dt.17.07.2012 and  subsequently O.P. also issued certificate being no.26205938 having folio no 26205938 against complainant’s application no. H01788 vide annexures. The amount was kept as fixed deposit which matured on 17.07.2013 and maturity amount is Rs.22,400/- vide annexures. Complainant visited O.P.’s office for several times but everything went in vain  and on 25.07.2013 complainant sent a letter to the O.P. but even after receiving the said letter, O.P. did not take any step to pay back the maturity value of the fixed deposit. And on 17.07.2013 complainant deposited all original documents to O.P. But no payment was made by O.P. till the filing of this case. Finding no other alternative complaint filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.

3.         Notice was served upon O.P. But none appeared and no W/V was filed by

O.P. Accordingly the case was heard exparte.

4.         Upon pleading of the complainant  two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.      Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint sworn on affidavit along with the documents and noted their contents. We all know that people of middle strata of our society keep their hard earned money with the private investment companies only to get some more amount of interest at the time of maturity. And it has become a very bad and usual practice of most of the investment companies to harass those people. They allure these people with all big talks but at the time of maturity neither they pay back the principal nor the interest amount. O.P. is an investment company running a business which is based on public satisfaction. We fail to understand why the organizations tike, O.P. forget that most important part of their business. Here in this case, O.P. has done the same thing. They have no regard or respect for complainant’s sentiment. For such a small amount of Rs.22,400/- complainant was compelled to run from pillar to post, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated any more. Moreover, even after receiving the summon of this Forum, O.P. did not care to appear and to file W/V, which clearly shows that O.P. has nothing to put forward in its favour. And we do not find it difficult to accept the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.  Accordingly the case succeeds on merit.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 332 of 2013 ( HDF  332 of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte with costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the O.P. is directed to pay the amount of Rs.22,400/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

      That the O.P. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order id the entire amount of Rs.28400/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.