The simple version of the complainant as enumerated in the complaint is that the complainant deposited money to the OP on different dates on different schemes being allured of the advertisement of PINCON GROUP and upon advice of their agent Smt. Chhabi Samanta of Dhaniakhali Hooghly she invested a hefty amount in their ASK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, Singur office in the name of his wife Smt. Chhabita Ash so that she could maintain her livelihood by her own income.  

       The complainant deposited Rs.150000/- in the MIS scheme, in three different certificate viz. certificate No.00182308,  certificate No.00182309 & certificate No.00117566, Rs.50000/- each. The OP company handed over some post dated cheques of every deposits mentioned above to the petitioner amounting to Rs.614/-each. The petitioner got payment of few post dated cheques and other post dated cheques is lying with her.

   That after completion of first redemption date i.e.13.02.2016 of certificate no.00117566 for a sum of Rs.50000/- the son-in-law of the complainant went to Kolkata office of the Ask Financial Services Ltd. with his mother-in-law i.e. the complainant herein for encashment of the redemption value of certificate no.00117566. One employee of the office of OP No.1 i.e. Ask Financial Services Ltd. advised the complainant to go to Universal Multi State Credit Cooperative Ltd.,3, Dacres Lane, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata-700 069 because in this matter they are now dealing on behalf of the Ask Financial Service Ltd.

     That the petitioner being an old aged women and has been suffering from various ailments, went to the office of the Universal Multi State credit cooperative Ltd. at Dacres Lane with her son-in-law but this office told the complainant that they would make payment but 30% amount would be deducted from the redemption value. They also told the complainant that the original copy of the certificate would be deposited now to them after three or four months they would pay the amount after deduction of 30% from the redemption value. At last the complainant returned back from their office hopelessly. Although the fixed deposit amounts as stated in the table above have not yet matured but the complainant has no faith upon the OP Company. So, she would like to encash the above fixed deposit amounts immediately with interest upto the date of encashment. This complainant did not implead the Singur Office of the OP Company where the husband of the complainant invested the amounts on the ground that they have already closed their Singur Office. The OPs are deficient in providing service to this complainant and they also done unfair trade practice.

So, the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum to get a direction to refund the redemption value with interest which were already matured, and to refund the redemption value along with interest of other fixed deposit amounts mentioned above, to direct the OPs to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to this complainant towards compensation for unnecessary anxiety, mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for litigation cost and any other relief / reliefs as per law and equity.

Despite receiving notice OP No. 1 to 3 did not turn up. So the proceeding run ex parte against the OPs vide order no. 7 dated 11.08.2008.

Complainant files Evidence on Affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supported the averments of the complaint petition. So it is needless to discuss. Complainant also filed Brief Notes of Argument. Ex parte argument advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full and fixed next date for passing Final Order.

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Smt. Sabita Ash is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2). Whether this Forum has territorial / pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3). Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice / rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4). Whether the Complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?

5). Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for?

DECISION WITH  REASONS

In the light of discussions herein above we find that the following issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

  1).Whether the Complainant Smt. Sabita Ash is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

          From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP by investing money in different schemes, is entitled to get service from the OPs.

 (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

         Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly and cause of action took place at Singur, Hooghly. The complaint valued at Rs.3,79,680/- redemption value along with interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial / pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.  

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice / rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

       After perusing the Complaint Petition, Evidence on Affidavit and also the documents as filed by this complainant and hearing the arguments as advanced by the agent of the complainant it appears that the complainant deposited sums in different schemes like i) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 50 only, deposited amount Rs. 50,000/- being certificate no. 00182308. ii) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 50 only, deposited amount Rs. 50,000/- being certificate no. 00182310, iii) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 12 only, deposited amount Rs. 12,000/- being certificate no. 00182498, iv) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 12 only, deposited amount Rs. 12,000/- being certificate no. 00182517, v) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 12 only, deposited amount Rs. 12,000/- being certificate no. 00182506, vi)  Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 12 only, deposited amount Rs. 12,000/- being certificate no. 00182311, vii) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 12 only, deposited amount Rs. 12,000/- being certificate no. 00182496, viii) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 25 only, deposited amount Rs. 25,000/- being certificate no. 00150738, ix) Non Convertible Redeemable Secured Debentures 25 only, deposited amount Rs. 25,000/- being certificate no. 00150740, and other investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-60 months, investment Rs. 25,000/- dated 22.03.2013 being document no. 0000981288, other investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-30 months, investment Rs. 25,000/- dated 19.04.2018 , investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-30 months, investment Rs. 50,000/- dated 19.04.2013, investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-60 months, investment Rs. 12,000/- dated 20.04.2013, investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-60 months, investment Rs. 12,000/- dated 20.04.2013, investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-60 months, investment Rs. 12,000/- dated 19.04.2013, investment receipts of OP being Plan Code NCAFSL-60 months, investment Rs. 12,000/- dated 19.04.2013.

        The documents of investment are produced in Xerox copies. The receipts/certificates are signed by the Secretary/ Authorised Signatory of the OP No.1. So we may presume that the OP No.1 accepted those invested amounts of the complainant.  But it is not clear whether the complainant received the said matured amounts from the OP No.1. The complainant by filing  evidence on affidavit demanded that she did not receive the matured amount till date and as the OP No.1 did not meet demand of the complainant so this complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint for getting matured amounts including interest, compensation & cost. The complaint petition is unchallenged one as the OP No.1, 2 & 3 did not appear and file their written version, so the proceedings run ex-parte against the OP No.1, 2 & 3. The complainant invested such money in good faith for getting handsome money from the OP No.1 in moderate rate of interest. And after the maturity the OP No.1 did not return the maturity value to this complainant for which this complainant getting no alternative compelled to take the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint. This complainant after the expiry of the period as fixed earlier approached the OP No.1 for getting the matured sum but the OP No.1 did not show good gesture upon the complainant by paying the matured amounts. As such the OPs are deficient in providing service to this complainant and they are also in the charge of unfair trade practice. So the demand of the complainant is valid, cogent and at per but not excessive or exorbitant. So the complainant is entitled to get maturity benefits, including interest @ 10% per annum since date of maturity till the realization with a  litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- from the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the passing this order.

4.  Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?

The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has abled to prove her case. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay compensation to this Complainant as we deem fit and proper.

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?

As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be ousted and as such the Complainant is entitled to get relief(s).

              Hence it is ordered that the complaint case being no. CC 99/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Party No.1, with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to this complainant.

             The OP No.2 & 3 are exonerated from their liability.

              The Opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to pay the matured amounts plus maturity benefit to this complainant as per her investment, including interest @ 10% since the date of maturity till date of realization and compensation of Rs.40,000/- for mental pain & agony to this complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this  final order.

                No other relief (s) is awarded to the complainant.

        The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account for unfair trade practice within 45 days from the date of passing this  final order.

         At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

     Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.