DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.06.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant was persuaded by the opposite party for deposit of money for five years deposit scheme so that the money deposited shall be double on the expiry of five years. Being impressed with the five years deposit scheme, the complainant deposited sum of Rs.50,000/- only on dated 30.12.2003 with O.P. The opposites party on receipt of Rs.50,000/- only issued spot receipt vide receipt No. 8602 dated 30.12.2003 duly signed and sealed. After completion of 5 years from the date of deposit i.e. 30.12.2003, the complainant approached the O.P. for payment of agreed money of Rs.1,00,000/-only. Instead of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- the O,.P. issued one Account payee cheque for Rs.60,000/- only vide cheque No. 835288 dated 30.12.2008 drawn in the Vyasya Bank Limited. On receipt of cheque dated 30.12.2008, the complainant submitted the same at Andhra Bank, Sheragada, Ganjam for necessary realization from the drawn bank i.e. Vyasya Bank. Instead of crediting the same to the S.B. account of the complainant the Andhra Bank, Sheragada returned the same cheque stating as account closed. The said letter of Vyasa Bank addressed to Andhra Bank was in letter dated 27.01.2009. After receipt of said letter from Andhra Bank, Sheragada on 10.02.2009, the complainant approached the O.P. time and again but of no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- only as the five years deposit scheme, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interests of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issue notice to the Opposite Party. The delay was condoned in the case.
4. The Opposite Party appeared and filed Vakalatanama through its advocate on dated 04.02.2013 but did not turn up to file either written version or evidence on affidavit in its favour in this case.
5. On the date of hearing the advocate for the complainant is present. On perusal of the case record and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is revealed that, the complainant did not file any documents in support of the claim of maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on deposit of Rs.50,000/- for five years deposit scheme of the opposite party. Further it is manifests from the Annexure-2 that, the opposite party has issued a cheque for Rs.60,000/- dated 30.12.2008 which was dishonored by the banker of the complainant due to closing of the account by the opposite party. It attracts Section 138 of the N.I. Act also. Thereafter also the O.P. infringed the rights of the complainant and deprived him to get back his matured amount with interest. Hence the cause of action is continuing in the instant case as the O.P. is accruing each time a wrongful act by not refunding the matured amount. It is manifest from the case record that the intention of the opposite party regarding payment of the actual matured amount to the complainant. Hence issuance of a cheque of closed bank account by the drawer is tantamount to unfair trade practices. The O.P. did not file any written version in the present case after given ample of opportunities to file appropriate steps.
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 practices - OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
Considering the factual aspects of the case of the complainant, the commission allowed the complaint against the O.P for unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay matured amount of Rs.60,000/- with 9% interest per annum with effect from 30.12.2008 together with Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order 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 07.11.2012 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 10.06.2024.
