BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.Case No. 16 of 2018
Sri.Purna Chandra Tripathy
S/o- Kambupani Tripathy
At- Dhipasahi
PO/PS- Phulbani Town
Dist- Kandhamal ….……….Petitioner
Versus
Branch Manager,
Sahara India
At:- Ananda Bazar
Po/Ps- Phulbani Town
Dist- Kandhamal…………..Opp.Party
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, President,
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi, Member
Counsel: For the complainant: Self
For the Opp. Parties:None (Ex-parte)
Date of argument:30.04.2022
Date of order: 09.05.2022
-
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi Member
In the matter of an application U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party for not paying maturity amount of the petitioner after its maturity date.
- Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner has made an investment of Rs, 21,600/-(Twenty one thousand six hundred) only on 22.05.2012 in Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited under the plan of “Sahara Q Shop”. The Opp.party has issued a certificate no- 562016669777 to that effect for a term of 72 months for maturity. After date of maturity complainant has submitted the application and the certificate to the opposite party for payment of maturity amount. The OP has assured to make early payment of maturity amount which has not been released till now. It is alleged that due to non-release of the maturity amount in time the complainant suffered from mental agony as well as from financial harassment. On-release of the maturity amount under the fixed deposit plan of” Sahara Q Shop” indicates gross negligence from the side of opposite side which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party. Therefore, the complainant has knocked at the doors of this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P who is liable for payment of the maturity amount and prays for direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 43200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. In addition, the complainant claims compensation of Rs. 5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/ towards litigation cost.
- Despite service of notice the O.P neither appeared nor filed any written version denying the allegations of the complainant for which the matter was heard on merit basing on the documents available on record.
- Before going to the merits of the case, we have to examine whether the case is maintainable as he has been filed by Purna Chandra Tripathy. Whereas the certificate has been issued in the name of Pratikhya Tripathy. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he has deposited the amount in the name of his minor daughter Pratikhya Tripathy. Since the certificate has been issued in favor of a minor the petitioner in his capacity as the father of the petitioner is entitled to file this case. Therefore the case is maintainable before this commission.
- The sole complaint of the petitioner is that the Opp. Party has failed to pay his maturity amount after 72 months valued at Rs. 43200/-. On perusal of documents filed by the petitioner, it is revealed that the money receipt/certificate is silent regarding the date of maturity and amount payable on maturity. So we are unable to hold that the maturity period was 72 months and the maturity value is Rs. 43,200/-. But one thing is clear that the petitioner has deposited the amount and the interest is to be paid at the rate 2.13/2.26/2.35/3.84/3.97/4.06. As there is no specification regarding the number of times, we are unable to stick to that clause also which is very ambiguous.
- As the OP did not appear nor contested the claim in any manner the fact of the deposit is clearly admitted and in the absence of any clear cut provision in the certificate issued by the O.P, We feel that the payment @ 12% interest on the deposited amount till it is refunded to the petitioner will suffice the purpose.
- The complainant in support of his stand filed Xerox copy of certificate “Sahara Q Shop” receipt showing payment of the amount Rs.21600/ - (Twenty one thousand six hundred) only.
- It is the case of the petitioner that after maturity of the deposits as stated above, the complainant has submitted certificate to the OP for refund of the maturity amount, to which the O.P did not pay any heed which is the pivotal grievance of the complainant. Non-refund of the maturity amount on the part of the Opp. Party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant also alleged that due to non-refund of the amount in question, he suffered from mental agony and also sustained financial loss as at the time of need. He could not get his hard earned money due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the OP. On the other hand, the Opp. Party neither turned up nor denied allegations made by the complainant which is supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant. Hence, taking into considerations of the submissions of the complainant and after perusal of the deposit certificate granted by the OP, we are of the opinion that even after maturity of investment made by the complainant, the O.P slept over the matter and did not release which is gross negligence and amounts to unfair trade practice and thus the O.P is squarely liable for such deficiency. Hence the order.
-
The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite party. The Opp. Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.21 600/ with interest @12% p.a from the date of deposit till it is paid to the petitioner under certificate No.562016669777 dated 12.05.2012, and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-( Rupees five thousand)only towards cost of litigation. The order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
I agree Computerized to my dictation and corrected by me.
(Sri Purna Chandra Mishra) (Sri Sudhakar Senapothi)
