BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (DISTRICT COMMISSION), BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR

C. C.  Case No.  2   of  2022

          Smt. Thongam Kiranbala Devi, aged 50 years, W/o. Th. Sudhir Meetei  a resident of Terakhongshangbi Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur.

                                                                Complainant.

          - VERSUS -

1.       The Manager Director,                                                        Manipur Development Finance Investment (MDFI),                       Head Office : Keishampat Keisham Leikai, MRB Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, PIN-795001.

2.       The Branch Manager,                                                                    Manipur Development Finance Investment (MDFI),                       Moirang Branch, Moirang Bazar, SBI Moirang Branch Building, Opposite Jockey Showroom, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur, PIN-795133.

. . . Opposite parties.

                                        PRESENT

1. Shri Y. Lokendro Singh, President

2. Smt. S. Shadhana Devi, Member

3. Shri S. Devananda Singh, Member

For the complainant                :    Th. Sudhir Meetei, Kiranbala,                                                             Parameshwri, Advocate

For the opposite parties : Nemo

Date of hearing       : 01-09-2022

Date of order          : 01-09-2022

ORDER

1.       It happened on 10-06-2019, the complainant open an Account being No. MDFI01281M by depositing a sum of Rs. 3000/- with the office of OP No. 2. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 97,000/- on the same day to the said account. Thereafter, the complainant further deposited a sum of  Rs. 50,000/- on 10-09-2019 to the said account.

2.       The OPs. refused to withdraw the money from the said account. It is permissible for the OPs. to pay the amount to the Complainant and such payments shall constitute a full discharge to the OPs. of its liability in respect of the deposited amount.

3.       The complainant has filed this complaint case  for taking suitable actions against OPs. for deficiency in service.

4.       On summoned the OPs. had appeared and admitted the deposited amount  claimed in the complaint and did not file any written version or objection. The OPs. orally submitted that the amount claimed in the complaint shall be paid to the complainant with a prayer to make part payment of Rs. 30,000/- for every month. In compliance to their undertaking part payment of Rs. 30,000/- was paid on 16-03-2022;  (ii)  Rs. 30,000/- was paid on 04-05-2022 and (iii)  Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 12-07-2022. The complainant recieved the said amount.

5.       To-day, the complainant by Ld Counsel is present. The OPs. are absent without showing any cause.

6.       Heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant at length. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant prays for disposal of the complaint directing the O.Ps. to make further payment in part till the remaining amount of Rs. 65,000/- is liquidated. We appreciate the submission and have resolved to determine the complaint in the we consider it to be exorbitant. However, awarding of Rs. 50,000/- will be quite reasonable and as such we impose cost and compensation Rs. 50,000/- which the OPs shall pay to the complainant within 30 days of this order.

          The complaint is disposed of with the above observation.

          Announced.

Member.                                     Member.                           President.