This is a complaint filed by one Sri Amitava Chakraborty, son of Late Anil Chandra Chakraborty, Vivekananda Sarani, P.O. & Vill-Udayrajpur, Madhyamgram, P.S.-Madhyamgram, Kolkata – 700 129 against Mr. Ujjal Kumar Banerjee, Managing Director, Exsem India Krishi Bikash Ltd., residing at 39/A, 17, Uday Sankar Sarani, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-95, praying for (a) Rs.3,30,000/- as maturity value, (b) Rs.74,250/- as due money monthly instalment of Rs.3,375/- with effect from 19.7.2014 to 19.3.2016 for 22 months, (c ) Rs.2,55,960/- recurring deposit scheme Rs.6,000/- p.m., maturity value of Rs.42,660/-, (d) Rs.3,00,000/- for outside living for two years, (e) Rs.3,00,000/- for medical expenses for heart attack and other diseases and (f) Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and (g) Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Amitava Chakraborty, son of Late Anil Chandra Chakraborty, residing in the house of Krishna Paul is a retired government officer, State of West Bengal and superannuated on 31.1.2008 and aged about 68 years. Complainant, on 20.4.2010 invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as fixed deposit for six years in favour of the Company named Exsem India Krishi Bikash Ltd., located at 55A, Shyambazar, Kolkata.

            Thereafter, Complainant opened a recurring deposit scheme in the said Company Exsem India Krishi Bikash Ltd. for Rs.6,000/- and he paid this amount from 13.6.2012 to 12.6.2015. Complainant also entered into agreement with the OP. Complainant stated that he had regular income of Rs.3,375/- for his deposit. But, OP did not return back the maturity amount. So, Complainant visited personally to the OP and came into contact with Ujjal Kr. Banerjee, Managing Director and knew that he was arrested and put into jail custody and on the date Complainant lodged F.I.R. Complainant also came to learn that Mr. Ujjal Kumar Banerjee was released on bail and is living at his address. Complainant went to meet Mr. Banerjee at his residence. But, Mr. Banerjee did not meet him.
Complainant having no other alternative moved Hon’ble High Court where he learnt that he will have to file the case before the Consumer Redressal Forum.

            On the basis of the above facts, notices were served upon the OP. But, he did not appear and so the case is heard ex-parte.

 Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the relief which he has prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for maturity value of the fixed deposit, recurring deposit and the money paid in instalments.

            Complainant has filed Xerox copies of the documents – Annexure A is the Xerox copy of the receipt showing that Complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- Further, Annexure B is one Xerox copy of the receipt which reveals that he gave OP Rs.3,00,000/-.In addition, Complainant has filed Xerox copy of the receipt showing that on 19.8.2014, 19.7.2014, 19.9.2014 he paid Rs.3,375/- as instalments. Further, Annexure D reveals that Complainant paid Rs.1,000/-, Annexure E reveals that Complainant paid Rs.1,000/-, Annexure F reveals that Complainant paid Rs.2,000/-, Annexure G reveals that Complainant paid Rs.1,000/- and Annexure H reveals that Complainant paid Rs.1,000/-. So, total of the amount paid by the Complainant comes to Rs.3,19,500/-.

            Since, OP did not contest this case. The Complainant is entitled to get back the amount which he paid with interest @ 10% from the date of filing of this case and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Hence,

ordered

               CC/287/2016 is allowed ex-parte in part. OP is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.3,19,500/-  within two months of this order with interest of 10% from the date of filing of this case i.e. 4.7.2016 and also compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within this period.