This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- to Gold Mine Industries Ltd. as per policy of MIS Scheme with a rate of interest of 5% per month and the date of maturity of those policy was on 13-07-2013.  It is stated by the complainant that after the maturity of the F.D. the OP Company did not return his money along with interest.  So, the complainant has complaint before the Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal, 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, but the OP Company did not respond to them.  So, finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed this case before the Ld. Forum for redressal of his case.

          Fact remains that summons were went by Regd. Post with A/D. Speed Post to the OPs and same were duly served but refused by the OPs what is evident from the postal internet result.    So, OPs neither appeared nor contested the case by filing written objection despite service of notices.  Hence, the case is heard ex parte.     

Decision with Reasons

In fact, in this case relying upon the fact as disclosed in the complaint and unchallenged testimony of the complainant and documents and also considering the argument as advanced by the complainant and also in support of the receipts/documents of Rs.5,00,000/- vide receipt nos.227044/1 dated 13-07-2012 and 227042/1 dated 13-07-2012, it is evident that the complainant paid the above sum for the MIS to the OP/Goldmine Industries Ltd. for a period of 12(twelve) months and the date of maturity was on 13-07-2013.

          On proper evaluation of the argument in this regard, we hjave gathered that it is true that the complainant has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- only to the OP/Gold Mine Industries Ltd. as per M.I.S. Scheme for twelve month @5% interest per month and the maturity date was on 13-07-2013.

          Fact remains the OP Company also issued payment vouchers of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 13-07-2013 respectively, but in course of due date of payment, the maturity value of the fixed deposit has not been refun ded by the OP Gold Mine Industries Ltd. in spite of issuing advance payment voucher dated 13-07-2013 in favour of the complainant.

          The main contention of the complainant is that since he had deposited/invested his hard earned money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs and the OP has received the money and issued the receipt for the same as fixed deposit for 12 months and accordingly handed over advance payment vouchers amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant on due date of its maturity which has the terms of the contract between them and also obligation on its part of the OP to refund the money to the depositor while they did not perform their obligation in due course of maturity date.  So, a failure to refund the amount deposited with any financial institution on maturity, amounts to deficiency in service.

          In Smt. Subhalakshmi Devidas vs. Chairman, Man Jog Group of Companies the complainant invested Rs.40,000/- with the respondent under the scheme “m/s. Man Jog Family Welfare Plans.”  The respondant failed to make the payments to the complianant as per the terms of the scheme.  The Karnataka State Commission held that there was clearly a deficiency in service rendered by the respondent which had resulted in great loss and injury to the complainant and the commission, thus ordered that the complainant was entitled to interest on the sum invested by him.

          In our view 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 assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of providing to persons interested a safe avenue for investment of their funds with assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment.  Now, it has become a common practice with middle-class families and pensioners to invest their funds in such deposit schemes.  It is of common knowledge that the consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enable to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business and earn high profits.  Out of that the company or firm pays a part of the money by way of interest to the depositors.  Such a transactions is clearly one of providing service for consideration and the depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act.  Thus, any default on the part of the company or firm to carry out its obligation to repay the principal or interest constitutes deficiency iun services.

So, considering the above conduct of the OPs, we are inclined to hold that the OPs have adopted deficiency and unfair trade practices as enshrined u/s.2(1)(g) and (r) of the C.P. Act, 1986, thus harassed the complainant who also suffered from mental agony and pain in all respects.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs with a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only).

          OPs are directed to refund and pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) along with interest @10%p.a.(at the rate of ten per cent per annum) over the sum since the date of its maturity i.e. 13-07-2013 and till its full payment of the same along with interest and same shall be paid within one month from the date of its order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order OPs shall have to pay punitive damages @Rs.500/- per day till full satisfaction with the decree and it the punitive damages is collected that shall be deposited to this Forum.

          For adopting unfair trade practice the OPs are again imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/-.

          Even if, the OPs neglect to comply this order, penal action/proceeding shall be initiated u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant to send this copy of this judgment to the OPs at once for compliance.