This appeal is directed against the final order dated 31.07.2017 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur in CC No. 37.01.2016. The fact of the case in brief is that one M. Ali registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., on 03.06.2016 to the affect that the appellant A. Mandal opened an office of respondent No. 2 the Chairman Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha (O.P. No. 1) for Chit Fund business at Hemtabad. Uttar Dinajpur. On 31.07.2010 the appellant A. Mandal as agent of Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha proposed him to purchase a fixed deposit scheme from his Company at the rate of 1 Lakh 50 Thousand with assurance that after six years he would get return back Rs. 3 Lakh. On good faith and assurance given to him by the appellant he purchased the fix deposit certificate from the appellant and handed over Rs. 1 Lakh 50 Thousand to the O.P. No. 1 that is the Chairman of Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha and the said O.P. No. 1 handed over him a fixed deposit certificate Bearing No. 005805 and the maturity date was fixed on 31.01.2016. After maturity he contacted with the appellant (O.P. No. 2) to get maturity value of Rs. 3 Lakh and at that time the O.P. No. 2 assured him that as the business of the Company was running from the house of the O.P. No. 2 and then he would reimbursement the complainant’s maturity amount within a short span of time. Subsequently, O.P. NO. 1 closed their office at Hemtabad and in this way both O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 have failed to make payment of the maturity amount and for that reason he registered the Consumer Complaint.

The Consumer Complaint was admitted in due course and both O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 was sent notice to their address but the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 did not contest the case. So, the case was heard Ex-parte. After conclusion of the hearing Ld. Forum has directed both O.P.s to pay Rs. 3 Lakh as maturity value of the fixed deposit scheme with 8% interest Per-annum from the date of maturity and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as harassment. The opposite Parties did not comply the order of the Ld. Forum and for that reason the decree holder/complainant put the decree into execution. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 A. Mandal has registered the appeal against the decree holder M. Ali and O.P. No. 2 as Pro-forma respondent (Chairman Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha). Both the respondents did not contest the case before this Commission and as such the appeal was heard Ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

During the pendency of the appeal the appellant A. Mandal has passed away and his legal heirs has been substituted themselves to conduct the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was conducted on behalf of the appellant by Ld. Advocate Mr. G. Rabbani. During the course of hearing Ld. Advocate had furnished all the necessary documents and also cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 4161 of 2012. At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate of the appellant submits that during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint case the appellant since deceased A. Mandal who happened to be the O.P. No. 2 of the case was completely bedridden due to heart attack and for that reason he could not contest the case. He further, submits that A. Mandal was only Commission agent and not the owner of the Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha, the Chit Fund Company. After closing of Chit Fund business by the Chairman of Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha the appellant remained unemployed and his condition became hands to mouth. So, he could not earn a penny to contest the Consumer Dispute and for that reason the matter was heard Ex-parte. It is further, submitted that the widow and only child of the appellant A. Mandal want to contest the Consumer Complaint case so that they can agitate the dispute in a proper manner as because their predecessor A. Mandal was only Commission agent and he had no direct liability to pay the maturity value to the Consumer Complaint. While, the Consumer Complainant in his Consumer Complaint categorically mentioned that he has handed over the fixed deposit amount Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Chairman of Bharatiya Gramin Seva Sanstha (O.P. NO. 1) directly. After considering all these aspects, the Commission thinks that the appellant A. Mandal has already passed away and his widow and minor children now are facing grave troubles as they have inhibited the dwelling house of A. Mandal and they have not a single penny to meet the execution money as awarded by the Ld. Forum. So, they wanted to contest the case before the Ld. Forum on merit and they can agitate their case in a proper manner before the Ld. Forum. After considering all these aspects, the Commission thinks it fit that the Ex-parte order of Ld. Forum should not be in-existence and the heirs of the appellant should get a chance to contest the Consumer Complaint in due course of law. Thus, the appeal succeeds.

Hence it is ordered

Thus, the appeal be and the same is allowed Ex-parte without any cost. That the impugned final order under Appeal dated 31.03.2017 in Reference to CC No 37 of 2016 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur is hereby set aside. The Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur is asked to re-open the case and give opportunity of 30 days to the heirs of the appellant A. Mandal to file the W.V. and thereafter adjudicate the instant Consumer Dispute afresh as per provisions of law.

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost. Let the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur for doing the needful.