DATE OF DISPOSAL: 19.12.2023
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The Opposite Parties are registered company under Companies Act, 1956 and now active in the file of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India. Their business was to allot an ID in favour of the consumer who has a book a Bike bot. The modus operandi to book a Bike Bot is as follows:- The first party will give Rs.4590/- per month (tax excluded) as the rent of the Bike, EMI Rs.5175/- per month, Monthly Income Rs.9765/- per month to second party for 12 months and the second party shall pay/transfer the amount of Rs.62100/- directly to the First Party Account through any of the means as mentioned in the agreement. Accordingly, the present complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,86.300/-in the bank account of O.P.No.1 through his United Bank of India via NEFT on 13.11.2018 and the O.Ps were acknowledged the same and assured to the complainant orally about return of amount of Rs.4,60,620/- with benefits for one year as per agreement. Duly acknowledging the above deposited amount, the O.Ps have issued three numbers of Bike Bot Ids bearing Nos. 645910, 128879 and 272913 in favour of the complainant. As per commitment, the O.P.No.2 on behest of O.P.No.1 paid back the amount with benefits a sum of Rs.3,76,350/-in shape of cheque bearing No.626370 dated 30.12.2019 Noble Co-operative Bank ltd. Noida, Raghunathpur, M.P. Road-1, Secteor-22, Noida-201301, U.P. of A/C No. 1001014002412. When the complainant submitted the said cheque in his bank, the cheque was returned with a memo from his bank United Bank of India with remark that, “36 wrongly delivered/ not drawn on us” vide Memo Sr. No: 3/ dated 07.01.2020. The O.Ps have violated their agreement by issuing the cheque of Rs.3,76,350/- instead of Rs.4,60,620/- which speaks volumes and it is tantamount to unfair trade practice. The period of agreement is over between O.Ps and the complainant above named but till date, the complainant could not be able to get entire benefits as per said agreement committed by the O.Ps and facing untoward problems and irreparable agonies financially, physically and mentally. On dated 04.02.2020 the complainant issued advocate notice to the O.Ps. The O.Ps did not choose to claim the said notice of the complainant and returned but the notice which was issued to the Ministry Corporate Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi has not been returned till date. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3,76,350/-with 12% of interest from the date of dishonored of cheque dated 07.01.2020, compensation of Rs.1,38,186/- and litigation cost of Rs.92,124/- in the best interests of justice.
3. The delay in filling of the present consumer complaint is condoned in accordance to the order in SMWP(C) No.: 3 of 2020. Accordingly, notice was issued to the O.Ps but they neither appear nor filed any written version.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,86,300/- and entitled to receive the same with interest from the O.Ps. Though notice was sent by this Ld. District CDR Commission, Ganjam Berhampur for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.
Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund cheque amount of Rs.3,76,350/- only along with 7% interest per annum to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 19.12.2022 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 19.12.2023.
