BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.
C.C. No. 25 OF 2018
Present: Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik - President (I/c).
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Sanjay Kumar Das, age about 51 years
S/o: Late Banchhanidhi Das, At: Brahaman Sahi,
PO/PS: Phulbani Town
Dist: Kandhamal ………. Complainant
-Versus-
Branch Manager,
Sahara India Phulbani
At: Ananda Bazar,
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal ………. Opposite Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the Opp. Parties: Advocate Sri R.K. Das and Associates.
Date of Order: 10th February 2021.
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had deposited Rs.20, 000/- under the plan “Sahara Q- Shop” and to that effect the Opposite party issued a bond bearing No.562009210593 and the term of the said plan was for 72 months which commence on dated 31/07/2012 and the same has been matured. As per the complainant the maturity amount is Rs. 40,000/- which not yet paid to the complainant even if several approach. That the Complainant has submitted the application along with relevant documents before the Opposite party for payment of the matured amount but the OP 2always assured for early payment still the payment not yet paid by the OP, which clearly indicates the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Being aggrieved the complainant has filed this complaint before this commission with a prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party for payment of the maturity amount of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 05,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs 05,000/- for litigation cost. Accordingly the case of the complainant is admitted and issue notice to the OP for appearance and filing of version. On receipt of the notice the OP appeared and filed the version denial the allegation and stated that the Complainant is a Member of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited and the Complainant is not a consumer of the OP. Similarly the OP also stated that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and OP, hence claimed the complaint is not maintainable but the OP failed to file any documents to prove the same. The Complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit with the deposited receipt. We heard both the parties in length and gone through the case record and the documents available in record. In our considered view that the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the Q shop plan- H and the OP issued a certificate/bond as token of money receipt in favour of the Complainant. After carefully examination of the certificate/bond it has come to our notice that the OP issued the certificate which does not specify the maturity date and the maturity value on the face of the certificate/ bond. So we are not inclined to accept the version of the OP. From the averment facts and the evidence led by the parties it is well established that there is an unfair trade practice done by the OP. For the aforesaid reason it is undoubtedly clear that the Complainant has sustained mentally agony and harassment and it is also crystal clear that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and unfair trade practice. Hence order.
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed against the OP. The OP is hereby directed to pay Rs. 5000/- for unfair trade practice .Further it is also directed to the OP to refund the matured amount Rs. 40,000/- apart from the OP directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
