The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that in the last month of 2012 the Opposite party no.2 as an agent of Opp party no.1 came to the house of the petitioner and requested him to invest some money in the OP no.1 company and told the said company has bright future and the all money will be secured. The petitioner being pity pily upon the Opposite party no.1 opened two fixed deposit on 17.12.2012 in his name of Rs.54,000/- . The certificate no. is RDR no.0104003464.The date of maturity of the certificate was 17.6.2014 and maturity money was Rs.61,500/-.The petitioner also invested Rs.1800/- by depositing in a fixed deposit in the name of his wife Smt. Sulekha Hal on 18.12.12.The certificate no. is RDR no.0104003627 on 18.12.12 and the maturity date of the said certificate is 18.6.14 and maturity amount is Rs.2,050/-. The further case of the complainant is that after maturity date he met the agent Opposite party no.2 and told him to take necessary steps for withdrawing the said

amount. But the Op no.2 by showing various pretext avoided the petitioner and lastly the oP no.2 did not pay any heed .Thereafter, the complainant on 1.9.2014 wrote a letter to Opposite party no.1 claiming the amount of two RD certificates and stating that he has submitted two RD Books on 22.5.2014 through OP hno.2 Surja Sarkar. But the complainant has not yet received the maturity amount of the said two RD books. Hence, this complaint.

            OP no.2 and 3 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Opno.2 and 3 is that complainant deposited the money to the Opno.1 company and Op no.1 granted receipt. Then the all depositors claimed return of the deposited amount . But Op no.1 did not comply the same. Op no. 2 and 3 are not liable to any way. Hence, the case shall be dismissed against the op no.2 and 3.

            Op no.1 entered appearance in this case but ultimately he did not contest the case . So the case against the oP no.1 was heard exparte.

POINTS FOR DECISION :

1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?                                        

2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?    

3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :  

            It is admitted position that the complainant deposited money to the oP no. 1 company and date of maturity of that certificate was 17.6.2014. Maturity amount is Rs.61500/-. The complainant deposited another sum of money and complainant knew that Op no.1 is conducting Chit Fund as per their argument in para 1 and this amount is investment. The complainant cannot be considered as Consumer because he has invested money for more gain and that too in a company which is unauthorized by the Govt. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. So, after deliberation over the case of both sides we are to opine that as complainant is not a consumer , so is not entitled to get any benefit under this Act. As such, the case fails. Hence it is –

                                                            Ordered

            That the C.C. no.138 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. But no order as to cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.