Date of Filling: 18.10.2019
Date of Disposal: 22.07.2022
Appearance:
For the Complainant:VEDIC (Voluntary Consumer
Protection Organisation), Berhampur
For the Opposite Parties:Advocate Sri LalatenduPanigrahi
Advocate Sri ArbindPatnaik
Advocate Sri NiharRanjanPatnaik
Shri P. Surya Rao, President
The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint under Sec. 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party (in short OPs) and for Redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
The fact of the case as averred by the complainant is that the complainant is a woman and farmer by profession. The complainant came across the different financial schemes advertised and floated by the OP which were alluring and promising lucrative payments in return to the depositors. Accordingly the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 1558/- under a financial scheme UMBB floated by the Opposite Party for which ID bearing No.:109264422869 and two numbers of Certified form of money receipt have issued. Prior to get the matured amount on maturity date in accordance to the scheme, the opposite party cunningly deposited principal amount in another scheme ‘Super Magic Box Benefit (SMBB) – Micro Credit’ under the same ID in the month of the September-October 2009. Fixed the maturity amount to Rs.2706/- and matured date to September, 2017 and issued a Micro Credit pass book in favour of the Complainant. Prior to the maturity of the said Micro Credit scheme, the opposite party has collected the original pass book and certified form of money receipt from the complainant in presence of village gentleman Sri B. Gopal Reddy on 10.08.2016. When the said amount under SMBB-Micro Credit was matured sometime in the month of September, 2017, the complainant has approached the opposite party in person and through telephone several times and incurred Rs.4718/- towards travel, etc., but every time the OP refused to pay the matured amount to the complainant. And in constraint, the complainant with the help of a voluntary consumer protection organisation: VEDIC, Berhampur has issued a notice on Dated:19.10.2017 through registered post with AD on 27.10.2017 to the opposite party along with two responsible persons of the M/s Datum Marketing company but all in vein. In view of the very acts of the OP, the complainant filed this complaint for deficiency in services and unfair trade practice against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and sought relief. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
Admitting the Consumer Complaint, this Commission has issued notice to the opposite party and duly acknowledging the same the opposite party has appeared through her Advocate before this Commission. But the OP did not file the written version in consonance with the Act, 1986 and found absent on all dates. And the averment of the Complainant is remains unchallenged by the OP.
Citation:
- Mrs. Puneet Kaur vs. Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. & Others - reported in 2003 (1) CPR 274 (NC).
We have heard the learned voluntary consumer organisation VEDIC, Berhampur for the Complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
In the instant case it reveals that the complainant neither filed any documentary evidence i.e., receipt nor filed Micro Credit Pass Book in support of her claim. She only filed a notarised affidavit of Sri B. Gopal Reddy of her village. By taking the sole testimony of the complainant and an affidavit as well into the consideration, we accepted the contentions of the complainant as true and correct as it remained unchallenged. Law is well settled in the case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur vs. Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. & Others reported in 2003 (1) CPR 274 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was held that, “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service.”
Keeping in view of the above decision and the provisions of law of the land, the Commission allowed partly the case of the above named Complainant against the OP.
Hence, the Opposite Party is directed:-
- To pay the maturity amount of Rs.2706/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven Hundred Six) only to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filling of this case i.e., 18.10.2019 till its actual realisation.
- To pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) to the complainant towards compensation.
- To pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as litigation expenses.
This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, it shall be liable to pay the entire amount from (i) to (iii) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order of this case till its actual date of realization and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for realisation of all dues.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.
A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet. After compliance the case record be consigned to record room.
This order is pronounced on 22nd July 2022 in open Commission.
I agree I agree
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER(W) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Evidence affidavit of the Complainant is filed as PW-1.
A written argument of the complainant is filed.
Evidence affidavit of the opposite party: NIL.
No Written Version and Written Argument filed by the Opposite Party.
List of Exhibits:-
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ext. 1 – Advertisement
Ext. 2 – Registered Notice of VEDIC
Ext. 3 – Postal Receipt and Noticed Envelop
On behalf of the Opposite Parties:
NIL.
(Dict.)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Smt. Saritri Patnaik Shri Satish Kumar Panigrahi Shri P. Surya Rao
MEMBER(W) MEMBER PRESIDENT
