In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  286 / 2009

1)           Shri Arindam Nag,

48/1A, Ritchie Road, Kolkata-19.                                     ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1)           M/s. Dunlop India Ltd.,

46, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata-17.                            ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member

                        Smt. Dipa Sen (Maity), Member.

Order No.    7    Dated  1 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

This is a case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service u/s 2(i)(g) of the said Act.

          The case arises out of the complaint filed by Sri Arindam Nag of 48/1A, Richie Road, Kolkata-19. The case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited Rs.5000/- only on 21.8.1995 in one FDR bearing no.3A10105 @ 14% for term of 3 years in cumulative scheme and the date of maturity was on 20.8.1998. The complainant submitted Fixed Deposit receipt to the o.p. for payment on 22.7.1998. But the o.p. did not pay the principal sum or interest in respect of the said FDR in spite of several representations and correspondence to the o.p., the complainant has filed the case before the forum. One affidavit was filed by the complainant stating that the complainant never filed any complain before the Company Law Board.

          On the other hand, in spite of proper service of notice o.p. not appeared or not taken any step. As such, the case is taken up for hearing ex parte.

          Let us see whether the complainant is able to prove his case or not.

          Decision with reasons:

          Heard the complainant in length. It appears from the receipts filed by the complainant along with the petition of complaint that though the FDR in question was handed over to the o.p. company, the o.p. slept over the same for the reason best known to them. Non payment of the claim after the date of maturity of the FDR in is definitely an instance of deficiency in service from the end of the o.p. The complainant is no doubt a consumer in terms of Section 2(i)d(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date.

          As such, having regard to the facts shown in the body of he order and documents we hereby direct he o.p. to pay to the complainant of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only being principal amount together with interest at the contractual rate up to the date of maturity of the FDR in question. We also direct the o.p. to pay to the complainant post maturity interest @ 8% p.a. since after the date of maturity of the FDRs till the date of actual payment. If any amount concerning the FDR aforesaid is paid by the o.p. to the complainant in the mean time the o.p. shall have the authority to deduct he same from the claim allowed by this forum.

          The order aforesaid is directed to be complied with by the o.p. within thirty days on and from the date of communication of this order by the complainant to the o.p.

          Case no.286/2009 is thus allowed on ex parte with a cost of Rs.1000/- and disposed of.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

        ____Sd-______                _____Sd_______            ______Sd-______

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT