DATE OF FILING: 23.11.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 01.11.2017
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W):
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in financial service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the O.P. is the Chief Managing Director of Datum Marketing Ltd. running his marketing centre at Gundicha Nagar near Konisi Hata under Golanthara Police Station in Ganjam District incorporated on 10.10.2006 vide CIN: U513990R-2006 PTC 008969 and converted to Public Limited company on dated 30.06.2011 as per Companies Act, 1956 and continuing money circulation business and issuing Redeemable Bonds in “DAZZLE” option and in other plans, schemes and deposits assuring the depositors and bond holders to issue double of the deposit amount on completion of three years three months of the deposits and subscribed bonds from the O.P. Datum Marketing Limited as the maturity value to the deposits and bond holders or certificate holders and spread his scheme of business among general public. It is also stated that believing the assurance of the O.P., the complainant had deposited sum of Rs.9,928/- only on 31.01.2012 in the Datum Marketing cash receiving counter of O.P. at village Konisi and issued Dazzle option Bond in the name of the complainant vide Bond No.512267693698 and certificate No.01-31-305 incorporating the issue price i.e. the maturity value payable in the said bond on completion of 3 years 3 months from the date of said deposit and to pay a sum of Rs.19,500/- only on the date of redemption on 30.04.2015. On due date of redemption of the said Bond on 30.04.2015 the complainant demanded the issue price i.e. the maturity value of said Bond of Rs.19,500/- to the O.P. at his office at Konisi by surrendering the said bond. The O.P. assured her for disbursement of maturity amount of Bond after a few days of scrutiny of Dazzle Bond and to intimate her the date of disbursement of issue price of Bond or to send the cheque/bank draft of the maturity value of the Bonds Rs.19,500/- by registered posts but the O.P. remained silent. The complainant used to run to the Marketing Office of O.P. from time to time and demanded amount of Matured Bond on dated 17.06.2015, 28.06.2015 and 14.12.2015 respectively but the O.P. used to take time for payment of matured amount by taking foul pleas, harassed and frustrated the complainant in the like manner. On 26.12.2015 & 03.10.2016 the complainant issued a registered legal claim notice to the O.P. through her advocate. The complainant time and again approached to the O.P. but he told the complainant that the said amount will be disbursed by arranging funds and requested her to wait but all went in vain. On 23.09.2016 the complainant demanded maturity amount of Rs.19,500/- with interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till payment. It is also alleged that he misbehaved with the complainant and threatened her of dire consequences and warned her to do whatever she likes against him. Therefore on 03.10.2016 the complainant again issued a legal demand notice through her Advocate through Regd. Post with AD to the O.P. along with intimation to district administration and district police authority respectively. The O.P. received said legal notice with proper acknowledgement but did not make payment of the maturity amount to the complainant which is the crystal clear proof of deficiency in service, dishonest and unfair trade practice on part of the O.P. It is also alleged that this has caused her mental agony, wrongful loss, frustration and harassment due to the O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant has filed this complain petition with the prayer to direct the O.P to pay the assured sum of Dazzle Bond of Rs.19,500/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till payment along with a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued against the Opposite Party but he neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version. As a result, he was declared ex-parte on dated 11.05.2017 and proceeded accordingly.
4. On the date of ex-parte hearing of the consumer dispute, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case record. We have also perused the material documents placed on the case record. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. On perusal of case record and on verification of vital documents, we find that there is no dispute or doubt that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.9,928/- on 31.01.2012 in the chain marketing and continuing money circulation business of the O.P. for a period of 3 years 3 months under Dazzle Bond scheme and a sum of Rs.19,500/- was assured to be paid to the complainant as maturity value under the scheme of Dazzle Bond bearing No.512267693698, certificate No: 01-31-305 and the date of maturity of the Bond was on 30.04.2015. After the date of maturity, the complainant requested the O.P. to make payment of the maturity value under the said bond but the O.P. did not give any heed to it. On further perusal of the record, it also reveals that the complainant issued legal notices twice to the O.P. through her Advocates on 26.12.2015 and 30.10.2016 respectively to realize the amount but that also did not reap any fruitful results. At last, the complainant filed this consumer complaint in this Forum on 23.11.2016 and even after issue of notice from this Forum, the O.P. neither appeared nor preferred to contest the case, hence the case was proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. In the foregoing context, we would like to say that where the O.P. failed to appeared and not controverted the version of the complainant, we are constrained to accept and allow the claim of the complainant. In this case, as per the documents available on record and as per agreed terms and conditions by both parties, the O.P. is to pay Rs.19,500/- to the present complainant as maturity value of the deposited amount of Rs.9928/- after completion of 3 years and 3 months i.e. on or after 30.04.2015 as redeemed value of the bond. The O.P. failed to oblige the contractual obligations made between complainant and the company on 31.01.2012. We, therefore, feel that this case is nothing but a good example of unfair trade practice on part of O.P. since the company violated the terms of contract and not obliged its assurance to return the maturity value to the complainant on the date of maturity which amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of O.P.
5. As far as the maturity amount is concerned, in the case, the complainant has prayed to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.19,500/- towards maturity value along with 12% interest from the date of maturity and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. As per the assurance of the company and bond value as discussed above, the complainant is entitled to maturity value of Rs.19,500/- as is evident from the maturity bond placed on the case record. Similarly, since the O.P. has failed to return the maturity value to the complainant on or after the date of redemption of Dazzle Bond, the company is liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint in this Forum till the amount actually paid to the complainant. That apart, we are also convinced that the complainant is entitled for cost of litigation since the complainant has hired the services of advocates for issue of legal notice to the O.P. and has also filed this consumer dispute with the help of a professional Advocate. As far as the cost of litigation is concerned, we feel and quantify that a sum of Rs.3,000/- will be just and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case, since the complainant has paid the court fees and has also incurred expenses on clerical and other works. However, we are not inclined to direct the O.P. to pay compensation since we have already directed the O.P. Company to pay interest on the detained amount. In the light of above discussion and considering the fact and circumstance of the case, we allowed the case of the complainant against the O.P. who is liable to return the maturity amount to the complainant along with cost.
6. In the result, we direct the Opposite Party to return a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred) only to the complainant towards maturity value along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. from 23.11.2016 till the actual payment is made to the complainant. The O.P. is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- only to the complaint towards cost of litigation along with the maturity value. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the O.P. within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the whole amount under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. No orders as to compensation.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 1st November 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
