The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Hiralal Roy, Son of Late Ghanashyam Roy, resident of College Para, P.O. & P.S.- Raiganj, Dist.- Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 29/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant/ petitioner of the policy No-0059421067 commencing from 18/10/2007 and its maturity date is 18/10/2017. The regular yearly premium was fixed at Rs.15,000/- and the complainant regularly paid the premium within the due time but the maturity amount paid to the complainant was not satisfactory and no statement of accounts relating to the growth of fund and the premium utilized to purchase units for the policy was not given to the complainant.

As such the complainant sent an application under the provision of RTI Act for any information relating to the particulars of the calculation by which the O.P came to the amount of the matured value which was paid to the complainant and such application was sent by registered post with A/D but the O.P did not provide any information to the complainant.

It has been further stated that the complainant (Hiralal Roy) being a bonafide consumer has every right to get the information about the maturity value and the basis of calculation from his investment of account but the O.P did not give any permission . As such the complainant kept in dark about the approximate matter.

Subsequently the complainant through his advocate sent a notice dated 14/03/2018 by registered post with A/D to the O.P.No-2 stating all the material facts and requested the O.P.No-2 to supply the aforesaid particulars relating to the investment of the complainant but the O.P did not take any action in this matter.

It has been further stated that the O.Ps are bound to supply the information as regards to the investment and non supply of information regarding investment is a gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

The cause of action for the present case arose on 14/03/2018 and till continuing the complainant has prayed for a direction upon the opposite party to furnish the particulars of the calculation by which the O.P calculated the maturity value and the particulars of the periodical growth of fund and also prayed for compensations of Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the O.P by filing the W.V denying all the material allegations as labeled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Moreover, the complainant is not a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The further definite defence case is that the complainant has been filed this complaint to cause unjust enrichment at the cause of the O.P and to earn more amount of money from the Opposite party. So, considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 In order to prove the case the complainant Hiralal Roy was himself examined as PW1 and he was cross examined by the O.Ps. In this case the O.P did not adduce any evidence.

Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from this forum or not?

             D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S:

On perusal of the documents there is no dispute that the complainant (Hiralal Roy) purchased a policy form the O.P Company and monthly premium was fixed at Rs.15000/- and the complainant regularly paid the amount. But the main dispute arose as the complainant wanted to know the statement of accounts by which the O.Ps calculated the amount of the matured value and for which the complainant sent an application personally under the provisions of RTI Act but the complainant did not receive any reply from the O.Ps. Thereafter, the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 14/03/2018 but the O.Ps did not give any reply. Such silence on the part of the O.Ps raises strong suspicion as to the method of calculation. Moreover, the prayer is very simple and the complainant has prayed for a direction upon the Opposite parties to furnish the particulars of the calculation by which the O.P calculated the maturity value and the particulars of the periodical growth of fund to the complainant / petitioner. It is not understood what prevented the opposite party to supply information and such non supply of information raises a strong confusion as to the method of calculation. So, definitely it is a latches and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. In the W.V the O.P has raised that the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act but such objection is not tenable as because under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act the definition of consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. In the instant case the complainant paid money for purchasing the policy, so definitely it comes under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and definition of service means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. So, non supply of statement of accounts comes under the definition of deficiency of service. So, considering such facts and circumstances the complainant has been able to prove the case.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is,

                                O R D E R E D:

 That the complainant case being No. CC-29/18 be and the   same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.

The O.Ps are directed to furnish the particulars of accounts by which the O.P calculated the maturity value and particulars of the periodical growth of fund to the petitioner within 45 days. Besides that the complainant also gets Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) for mental pain and agony and Rs.5000/-(five thousand) for litigation cost. The O.P is directed to make the payment of Rs.15000/-(Fifteen thousand) within 45 days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of this case. In case of default in making payment the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of law.

In the case of default of supplying the particular accounts within the fixed time, the complainant will get an additional compensation of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) in default of supply of particular accounts or default of payment, the complainant will have the liberty to execute the order for recovery of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) as per provisions of law.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.