DATE OF FILING: 12.06.2014

                    DATE OF DISPOSAL: 13.04.2018

Mr. Karuna Kar Nayak, President:   

            The complainant Nilakantha Mallana  has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum. 

            2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he being motivated by advertisement of O.Ps, to get registration of a piece of land in his own name and also get EMP of Rs.2500, the complainant purchased the product fixed Investment Plan from O.Ps:

After receipt of the amount as per Annexure 3, the O.Ps executed the Deed of Assignment of Business Debt under Diamond Plan on 4^th August 2012 at Berhampur before the Notary Public and issued a bond bearing No. blcl 166 to the complainant. The O.Ps transferred the EMP amounts to the savings bank account of the complainant vide account No. 30894131872, State Bank of India, Kanisi Branch by adjusting in each and every month as follows:

When the complainant asked the O.P.No.2 about the update of the account in the month of April 2013 and when the O.P.No.2 did not respond to the complainant, the complainant make a complaint in person to the O.P.No. 1 & 3 but nobody pay any heed to it.  When the O.Ps closed the offices and left the place, the present complainant and other investor also made agitation infront of the house of the O.P.N o.3 on 8^th January 2014 and the same was published in the newspaper “The Samaj” on 9^th January 2014.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the rest of the EMPs to the complainant @ Rs.2500/- for 19 months, to register a land or refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-with 10% interest per annum  to the complainant, compensation of Rs.20,000/- for agonies suffered by the complainant physically, mentally and financially  and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- in the interest of justice.

            3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version. Hence all the O.Ps set exparte on dated 16.06.2016.

            4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case record and also perused the materials on the case record. We have also thoughtfully considered the submission made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. Despite several persuasions the O.Ps did not heed to consider the grievance of the complainant.  Hence in our considered view the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for which the complainant at this stage is entitled to get some relief as prayed for. The Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held in case of Punjab National Bank versus Meerut Development Authority  reported in 2008(4) CPR 473 that “Delay in delivering possession of house/flat after receiving full amount for same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. authority”. 

                        In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the actual deposited amount to the complainant within 60 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- for compensation alongwith Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.

             The order is pronounced on this day of 13^th April 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of