Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant invested some money as fixed deposit scheme of total Rs.188400/- only for himself in the year of 2012 to op-4 (Sahara Q shop Unique Product Range Limited) through op-2 and the op-2 assured the complainant that the said fixed deposited will be matured in the year of 2017 and after the maturity he will get the double amount which is he invest and the op-2 issued some fixed deposited certificate No., Date of issuing Deposited amount etc. which are mentioned in the complaint petition.
After maturity of the said fixed deposit of total Rs.188400/- only the complainant visited to the office of the op-2 and he approached the op-2 to release the maturity amount i.e. 376800/- but on the insistence of the op-2 complainant further agreed to re-invested the aforesaid amount for the period of 24 months in the fixed deposit scheme and the op-2 converted the scheme in to Golden 24 under op-1 through op-2. The op-2 issued some fixed deposited certificates which are mentioned in the complaint petition.
After maturity of the said fixed deposit the complainant on several times visited to the office of the op-2 and requested them to take necessary steps for payment of his maturity amount but he was not at all ready and willing to cooperate with the complainant by informing the fate of the claim of the complainant.
Complainant sent a letter dated 15.12.2021 to the op-2 and further on 17.1.2022 to the op-1 and on 3.2.2022 to the op-1 stating inter alia his claim and for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage requested them for payment of the maturity amount and waited for a long time but till date no correspondence has yet been made from ops part regarding settlement of the claim of the complainant for the reasons best known to them.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.376800/- for first 5 year fixed deposit scream along with @18% interest from 2012 and to pay a sum of Rs.236329/- next 2 year fixed deposit scream along with @ 18% interest from 31.5.2018k and to pay a sum of Rs.500000/- for mental agony, anxiety and harassment due to deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- for litigation cost.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of complainant sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the complainant.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
Inspite of receiving notice and paper publication the OPs did not appeared to defend them against the allegations made by the complainant, so the district commission has no other alternative but to proceed with ex parte hearing against all the OPs.
The complainant invested some money as fixed deposit scheme amounting to Rs.188400/- only for himself in the year of 2012 to Sahara Q shop Unique Product Range Limited through the branch manager (op-2) and the he assured the complainant that the said fixed deposited will be matured in the year of 2017 and once it is matured he will get the double amount which he has fixed and the OP-2 issued some fixed deposited certificate Nos, Date of issuing Deposited amount etc.
After maturity of the said fixed deposit of total Rs.188400/- only the complainant visited and he approached op-2 to release the maturity amount i.e. 376800/- but op-2 insisted the complainant to re-invested the aforesaid amount for the period of 24 months in the fixed deposit scheme; complainant agreed to that and op-2 converted the scheme in to Golden 24 under op-1. The op-2 issued some fixed deposited certificates with regard to the reinvestment also.
The complainant repeatedly requested the OP2 as well as OP1 to handover the matured amount to him as he is in need of money but all were in vain. Letters were also sent to OP1 and OP2 for taking steps so that the complainant can get his matured amount, but no reply was received from their side, finding no other alternative complainant filed this case.
The OPs did not appear, but the complainant submitted all the photocopies of the certificated issued by OP nos. 1 and 4 to where from it appears that the complainant invested as fixed deposit a huge amount to OP1 and OP4 through OP2, more so to substantiate his case the complainant submitted three photocopies of the letters dated 15/12/2021, 17/1/22 and 03/02/22 where from it is crystal clear that the complainant was repeatedly requested the OPs to release his matured amount as he is in urgent need of the money for the purpose of the marriage of his daughter but the OPs did not find it necessary to take steps to handover the said matured amount to the complainant.
From the act and conduct of the OPs it is clear that they are reluctant to handover the amount deposited by the complainant rather they are interested to earn profit from this type of business.
It is a fact that complainant has invested his hard earned money with OP1 and OP4 and after maturity OPs did not take any initiative for payment of the maturity amount to the complainant, so gross deficiency of service has been committed by the OPs.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case no. 38 of 2022 be and the same is decreed ex parte against the ops.
Complainant do get Rs. 1,88,400/- along with @9% interest per annum from the date of investment i.e. from 21.8.2012 from op no. 4 within 45 days from date and do get Rs. 2,36,329/- along with @9% interest per annum from the date of maturity i.e. from 31.5.2020 from op no. 1 within 45 days from date otherwise complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.
Complainant do get Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost from op nos. 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally within 45 days from date otherwise complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
