By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

           The case of the complainant in brief is that he opened a term account of Rs. 15000/- on 09.05.2010 being A/C No.2161 and certificate No. A002282 for 78 months  before the OP no1 through the Society’s Head Office at Baroj. The said term deposit got matured oin 09.11.2016 but neither the OP no1 nor OP no 2 has paid a single farthing towards the principle or interest  in spite of repeated requests and reminders. Thus the complainant has filed this complaint against the OPsclaiming the principle amount of Rs. 15000/-, interest at the rate of 10.85% from 09.05.2010 to 09.11.2016 totaling Rs. 15000/-, compensation of Rs. 30000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.         

No steps is taken by the OP no.1. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP no.1.

The OPs No. 2 and 3 have filed written version jointly and contest the case. They contended the complaint is not maintainable under various provisions of law and these OPs are not responsible in any way for the claim of the complainant. The petitioner is a depositor and as per contention of the written version, he is not a customer and this Forum cannot entertain such petition of the complainant.

            The OP No.4 the General Manager of MCCB Ltd. has filed written version and contested the case denying all the material allegations of the complaint and contended that the case is not maintainable in its present form and law; that the instant case is barred by the provisions of Sec. 102(4) of WBCS Act, 2006 and many other provisions of law.  This OP no. 4 claims that he is not connected with the deposit certificate of the complainant as alleged in the complaint petition.

On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the points for consideration in the case is whether the complaint petition is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                  Decision with Reasons.

            Seen the written complaint and the written version as well as the documents filed by the complainant and the OP Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In spite of service of notice the OP No. 1 did not turn up to contest the case.

 OP No 4 has stated that the instant case is bad for non-joinder of parties and OP no 4  is not involved with the matter and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. The case is also  barred by Secton 102(4) of the WBCS Act, 2006.

Section 3 of the C.P.Act says – the provisions  of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation  of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

             In view of the above the case is maintainable.

Seen the copy of the  Term Deposit Certificate filed by the complainant wherein it is found that he deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with the OPs on 09.05.10 and maturity date of the said certificate was 09.11.16 but on maturity the OPs did not refund the money to the complainant. The said certificate is signed by the OPs no. 1, 2 and 3. Hence, the OPs no. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the certificate though the OP no.4 has not received  that amount from the OPs no 1 to 3.

So, on perusal of the averments of the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant we are of the view that the complainant has convincingly proved his case  in support of affidavit and hence he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for against the OPs No 1 and 2 on contest and ex parte against the OP no.1.

Hence, it                                                      

                                                                                ORDERED

That the CC No. 67 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs No. 2 and 3, ex parte against the OP no 1 and dismissed on contest against the OP no.4.

The OPs no. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as principle and interest thereon as agreed by the certificate in question within one month from the date of this order, failing which they will have to pay further interest at the rate of 9% pa on the amount till full realization.

The OPs no 1 to 3 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant within one month hereof id they will have to pay Rs 100/- per day as punitive charge which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.