SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                        Deficiency in service in respect of non-disbursement of maturity amount are the allegations arrayed against the Opp. Parties.

2.                     Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant purchased 105 Nos. of ‘Abodo Bonds’ of Rs. 1000/- each and Ops issued total 7 Nos. bond receipts against the purchase of the Bond with maturity date as dt. 01.11.2018. It is stated that while the complainant was travelling to Cuttack on 10.12.2018 lost the Original Bonds for which he lodged a station diary on 08.03.2019 bearing  station diary No. 9 dtd. 08.03.2019 before Sadar Police Station, Kendrapara. Complainant also sworn an affidavit and requested the Op No.1 to issue duplicate Bonds to get back the matured amount. It is alleged that the Ops are Jointly and severally liable for payment of maturity amounts of bonds to the tune of Rs. 3,26,130/-. The non-payment of maturity amount caused financial hardship and mental agony to the complainant. The acts of the Ops are treated as deficiency in service as per the complaint. The cause of action of the instant case arose on 02.11.2018 when the Op No.1 refused to disburse the maturity amount. In the complaint, it is prayed that a direction may be given to Ops for release of matured amount of Rs. 3,26,130/- and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.

3.                     On receipt of Notice except OpNo.1 Branch Manager, Sahara India Estate Corp. Ltd. non-of the Ops appeared into the dispute, hence Op No.2 to 4 were set ex-parte by this Forum on dt. 19.08.2019. Op No.1 appeared through their Ld.Counsel Mr. M.P.Singh and filed written version into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the complainant on ground of ‘Arbitration’ clause in the agreement at the time of opening of Account. Op No.1 on the written version averred that due to non-submission of Original bonds and the accounts connected to the bonds mentioned on the complaint have already been reinvested in other Company like that Q-Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. and there after reinvested in Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society. It is also averred that Complainant taking false plea of lost of bonds has foisted this complaint which needs to be dismissed with cost.                                         

4.                     Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the Complainant and case of the Op on merit, perused the documents filed into the case. It is an admitted fact that complainant has purchased Bonds from Op No.1 on payments.

                        Op No.1-Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd., New Bus Stand, Kendrapra challenge the maintainability of the complainant on grounds of ‘Arbitration’ clause agreed between the parties during opening of the Account by the Complainant and cited a decision of Honbl’e Apex Court. On the point of maintainability of the complaint, we are of the opinion that Sec.3 of the C.P.Act-1986 which defines as “Act not in derogation to any other law”. OpNo.1 not filed the Account opening agreement by the parties as averred, believing the version of the Op No.1, if  said clause is a part of the agreement, but that does not prohibit the complainant-depositor to take the shelter of consumer Forum. In this regard we rely on the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court reported in case of Fair Air Engineers vs N.K. Modi reported on III (1996) CPJ 1(SC) and decision of Honbl’e National Commission reported in case of Raj Kumar Goyal Anr. vs Kamal Choudhary and others reported in 2017(1) CPR209(NC).  Honbl’e National Commission after analyzing the Sec.3 of the Act and citing a number of decision of Honbl’e Apex Court arrived into conclusion that under the Section of 3 of the C.P.Act-1986 legislators provided alternative method of redressal of grievance to a consumer, which is speedy and inexpensive, further it is the choice of consumer to decide the Platform where he has to redress his grievance. Hence, on this context we reject the plea of the maintainability of the complaint.

                        The next point of cause of non-disbursement of maturity amount, Op No.1 averred that as the complainant did not deposit the Original Bonds, the amounts could not be disbursed. Complainant in his complaint categorically states that the Original Bonds as described on the complaint are lost on transit on dt. 10.12.2018 also Registered a Station diary before Sadar Police Station, Kendrapara bearing No.9 dtd. 08.03.2019 and by affidavit requested the Op No.1 to issue the duplicate certificate for release of maturity amount, but same was denied by the Op No.1. In this point Forum is of the Opinion that loss of document/certificates on transit cannot be avoided and the complainant has taken lawful steps when he lost the Bonds on 10.12.2018 while travelling. More so, there are other legal options open before the Ops to release the matured amount of Bonds in case of lost of bond/documents in absence of production of Original documents. It is also clear that when the bonds are lost and station diary before Police is registered alongwith an affidavit this forum can neither compel the complainant to produce the Original Bonds for release of maturity amount nor the Ops and it is a fact that this is not a good plea of the Ops to release the maturity amount in absence of the Original bonds, complainant-depositor deserves to get back his amount. The stands taken by  Op No.1 in para-4 of additional plea of the written version, where OpNo.1 accuses the complainant in giving false information on para-4of the complaint. We gone though the para-4 of the complaint and found that the averments of Op No.1 is not only false but also concocted to degraded the impression of the complainant before this forum.

                        The last point of non-release of maturity amount as raised by the Ops on para-3 of additional plea of written version that the Accounts of the complainant related to the bonds already reinvested in other Company like that Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. and Humura India Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. In this aspect complaint is completely silent and Ops have not produce a single evidence that the Accounts of the complainant related to the bonds were reinvested on the consent or prior approval of the complainant-depositor.

                        On the above discussions it is quite clear that Ops have failed to appreciate this Forum the grounds taken for non-disbursement of maturity amount in favour of the complainant-depositor which is certainly caused financial hardship to the complainant. It is equally clear that the bonds and related accounts mentioned on the complaint are matured on 01.11.2018 and complainant is entitled to receive the matured amount of the bonds alongwith other financial benefits, if any as per the terms and condition of the ‘Abode bonds’. Ops are jointly and severally liable for non-payment of maturity amount of bonds to the complainant.                                          

                      Having observations reflected above, it is directed that, on deposit of photocopy of the bonds mentioned on the complaint on maturity date of 01.11.2018 by the complainant, the Ops shall release the matured amount as per the terms after following legal procedure, which is required for release of matured amount on non-production of Original bonds. It is further directed that Ops shall release the other financial benefits if any to the complainant-depositor as per the terms and condition alongwith 6% S.I. P.A. on the matured amount calculating from 02.11.2018 to till its realization. The Ops shall carryout the order within one month of receipt of this order, failing which 9% S.I.P.A. will be charged for the delayed period.

                      Complaint is allowed in part without cost.

               Pronounced in the open Court, this 12th day of September-2019.

                                I, agree.

                                   Sd/-                                              Sd/-

                              MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT