DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.10.2019
Sri Karunakar Nayak,President:
The complainants have 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 their grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the cases of the complainants are that the complainant No.1 is a retired Government servant and senior citizen. The complainant No.1 came across the financial schemes advertised and floated by the O.P. The schemes are (1) Universal Magic Box Benefit (2) Super Magic Box Benefit which were alluring and having lucrative payments in return to the depositors and investors. Before understand the entire concept of the above scheme, the complainant No.1 deposited an amount of Rs.1558/- each for three ID numbers 110265155996, 109261221747,110265512363 and Rs.4978/- ID number 310262697316 respectively as per scheme according to the advertisement made by the O.P. in the month of September-October 2009. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party also converted the deposits made by the two sons namely (1) B.Madhav Reddy (2) B.Bhagaban Reddy and two daughters namely (1) Rukmini Padhy (2) B.Nilabeni and son-in-law namely P.Kuresu of the complainant No.1 in to the one micro credit account of the complainant No.1 and the total amount was fixed to Rs.56,317/- as matured amount. The O.P. has collected the said micro credit passbook from the complainant No.1 on 10.08.2016. After maturity date, when the complainant No.1 approached and claimed the maturity amounting of Rs.56317/-, the O.P. has paid deaf ear to the complaint of the complainant No.1. The complainant No.1 approached and authorized one consumer protection centre of the Bramhapur city namely ‘VEDIC’ the complainant No.2 to help to redress the matter. Accordingly, the complainant No.2 on behest of the complainant No.1 issued a Demand Notice dated 19.10.2017 through Registered post with AD on 27.10.2017 to the present O.P. along with two other responsible persons of the Datum Marketing Company but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainants prayed to direct the O.P. to pay entire amount of Rs.60,235/- including matured amount of Rs.56,317/- and other expenses amount of Rs.3918/-, compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1500/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued against the O.P. The O.P. neither appeared nor filed any written version, hence the O.P. was declared exparte on 04.02.2019.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant is present. We heard argument from the advocate for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals from the complaint petition that the complainant No.1 has authorized Mr. Satis Kumar Panigrahi, Secretary, “VEDIC Consumer Organization, Bramhapur vide Registration No.: GJM-7498-62/2006-07” i.e. complainant No.2 to conduct the case on his behalf. In the instant case the complainant No.1 is not a real consumer as per Consumer Protection Act.
5. In the result, the complainants’ case is dismissed against the O.P. without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 17th October 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
