Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 22.01.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount under the invested amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 18% Per annum.
- To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lac only ) as compensation.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigations costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The claimant Narendra Kumar Mishra has asserted that on the assurance and under the influence of opposite party no. 1 and 2 the complainant agreed to purchase two Bonds. Thereafter the complainant filled up the application form bearing No. K9822235 made available by the agent in presence of opposite party no. 2 and issued a cheque worth of Rs. 10,000/- bearing no. 494736 dated 26.03.2002 of his Bank of India, Kankarbagh Branch, Patna and thereafter opposite party no. 2 ( Branch Manager ) issued acknowledgement slip immediately. It was assured by opposite party no. 2 that two Bonds certificates worth Rs. 10,000/- will be directly sent to the complainant by opposite party no. 1 and complainant will get 9.75% on maturity. The aforesaid amount of cheque was deducted from the account of the complainant on 27.03.2002.
It is the grievance of the complainant that despite several attempts and furnishing the full details/particulars of the investment on the assurance of opposite party no. 2 the complainant had not received either the certificate or any cash amount as per assurance of opposite parties. It has been further stated that when despite several attempts there was no reply on behalf of opposite party no. 2 then he visited the office of the opposite party no. 2 on 09.12.2011 but opposite party no. 2 denied making any commitment on the ground that the record on the basis of the investment particulars furnished by the complainant was untraceable.
The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has invested his hard money with hope that he will receive the aforesaid amount after maturity of the Bonds for his old age but the complainant stands cheated by the opposite parties.
It appears from the judicial record that despite notice when the opposite parties did not appeared then on 23.11.2012 “Tamila” was declared valid because registry notice did not returned un - served and thereafter the case had been heard ex–parte when opposite parties did not appear despite allowing several opportunities to opposite parties for the same.
As stated above, there is no counter version of the fact asserted by the complainant in his petition and hence we have no option but to accept the facts asserted by the complainant in his complaint petition.
It is needless to say that the aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties definitely disclose deficiency on their part.
In view of the aforesaid facts we hereby direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount to the complainant under the invested amount of Rs. 10,000/- within the period of three months from the date of receipt of order of or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the maturity amount till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the indication referred above.
Member President
