F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a complaint U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 with the prayer for an award directing the O.Ps. to pay the matured value, amounting to Rs.1,17,306/-, Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

This case was heard ex-parte as the O.Ps. in spite of service of notices upon them, did not appear in this case.

The complainant’s case in short is that the O.P. No.1 is the agent, O.P. No.3 & 5 are the Directors and O.P. No.4 is the Additional Director of Axes Multi Developers Ltd., having office in MS 29/07, Urvashi Malhar Phase-II, City Centre Durgapur. Being influenced and assured by the O.P. No.1, the complainant entered into the monthly deposit scheme for one year with the Axes Multi Developers Ltd. of which O.P. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 are the Directors and Additional Director and he deposited Rs.9,000/- per month (Rs.300/- per day) from 31.10.2012 to 03.10.2013, total Rs.1,08,000/- and the same was duly entered into the Daily Savings Account Book on condition that the O.P. company will return Rs.1,17,306/- after the completion of one year. But after the completion of one year the O.P. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 did not pay the matured value but being requested they on 15.11.2013 issued an A/c payee banker’s cheque being No.795660, dated 29.12.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank and the O.P. No.1 requested the complainant not to deposit said cheque in bank for encashment and requested him to be present on 15.01.2014 at Raiganj office to get the cash amount on depositing said cheque. The complainant as per said instruction appeared in the office but he did not get the money. Thereafter on several dates being requested, the complainant appeared in the office of the O.Ps. but on various pretext no amount was paid to the complainant. Lastly the complainant deposited the said cheque on 26.02.2014 at Tungidighi Branch of Raiganj Central Co-operative Bank. But said cheque was not encashed with the remark “fund insufficient”. For the fault of the O.Ps. the complainant was harassed. Accordingly he is entitled to get the entire matured amount along with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs.5,000/-. Hence this case.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish the case the complainant, has relied upon his examination-in-chief duly authenticated by the Notary, photocopies of letter dated 31.10.2012 issued by O.P. No.1, Daily Savings A/c Book, 3 receipts issued by Axes Multi Developers Ltd. showing deposit of money at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month, banker’s cheque for Rs.1,17,306/- drawn on HDFC Bank, collection receipt dated 26.02.2014, return report issued by Raiganj Central Co-operative Bank Limited showing unpaid of the cheque in question.

We carefully peruse all the above documents and the statement of the complainant. From the documents as mentioned it appears that the complainant made deposit Rs.9,000/- per month for a period of one year, total Rs.1,08,000/-. No document is coming to show that the complainant entered into the monthly deposit scheme with the O.P. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 but the three receipts issued in the months of October and December show that the O.P. Axes Multi Developers Ltd. received Rs.9,000/- per month from the complainant. Other receipts are not coming for consideration. The complainant has stated that he deposited total Rs.1,08,000/- in the monthly deposit scheme with the Axes Multi Developers Ltd. and after maturity he is entitled to get total Rs.1,17,306/-. This unchallenged testimony of the complainant should not be disbelieved as after the expiry of one year Axes Multi Developers Ltd. issued a banker’s cheque as mentioned above admitting the matured value as claimed by the complainant. From the evidence on record it is clear that the O.P. company with ill intention to deprive the complainant issued the banker’s cheque being No.795660, dated 29.12.2013 which was not encashed due to insufficient fund. From the evidence on record it is clear that the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 had/ has negligence in the matter of giving relief to the complainant and there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 who are no doubt the service providers. It is essential to mention that O.P. No.1 being the agent should not be treated as service provider and accordingly he has no liability to satisfy the claim of the complainant.

In view of the above discussions it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get the matured amount of Rs.1,17,306/-, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused for the negligence on the part of the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost from the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

that  the  complaint  case  being  No. CC-67/2014  is  allowed against the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 and the same is dismissed against the O.P. No. 1 ex- parte without cost .

that the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 to pay Rs.1,17,306/- as matured value of Monthly Deposit Scheme, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant, the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 are directed to pay such awarded amount to the complainant within one month from this day failing which the awarded total amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of full realization of the same and  the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.  

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.