DATE OF DISPOSAL: 30.10.2023
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a house wife. To mitigate the future needs, the complainant out of her pocket money deposited the amount as per advertisement of Bike Bot Scheme of the Opposite Parties. The O.Ps are registered company under Companies Act, 1956 and now active in the file of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India, and their business was to allot a ID in favour of the consumer who has booked a Bike bot by depositing a sum of Rs.62,100/- and in return the O.Ps returned them Rs.4590/- per month as the rent of the Bike to the party for 12 months and for which, the O.Ps executed an agreement on 17.09.2018with the complainant. Accordingly the present complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,72,600/- in the Bank account of O.P.No.1 through NEFT as follows for nine numbers of Bike bot:
Date | Bank Account Number and Name of the Bank from which the amount was transferred. | Amount |
29.11.2018 | A/c No.10656751060 SBI Med. Coll. Campus Branch, Berhampur. | 1,24,200.00 |
28.11.2018 | A/c No.10656751060 SBI Med. Coll. Campus Branch, Berhampur. | 62,100.00 |
29.11.2018 | A/c No.25030100014770 Bank of Baroda, Brajanagar, Berhampur | 62,100.00 |
| Grand total deposited in Opposite Party A/C | 3,72,600.00 |
Duly acknowledging the amount, the O.Ps issued nine numbers of Bike Bot IDs vide Nos: 950285,728187, 122799, 7826851, 3876810 and 5060944 in favour of the complainant. As per commitment, the O.P.No.2 on behest of O.P.No.1 paid back the amount with benefits in different dates in total a sum of Rs.81,621/- after some months of deposit of above amount to the complainant as follows:
Date | Bank Account Number and Name of the Bank from which the amount was transferred. | Amount |
06.12.2018 | A/c No.10656751060 SBI Med. Coll. Campus, Berhampur. | 29,295.00 |
29.12.2018 | A/c No.10656751060 SBI Med. Coll. Campus, Berhampur. | 11,016.00 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Grand Total: Paid back by the O.Ps | 81,621.00 |
Subsequently, the O.P. No.2 issued an advance cheque prior to completion of the agreement period of one year i.e. cheque amounting of Rs.4,86,642/- vide cheque No.668314 dated 01.12.2019 of Noble Co-operative Bank ltd. Noida, Raghunathpur, M.P. Road-1, Sector-22, Noida 201301, U.P. of A/c No.1001014002412 in favour of the afore mentioned consumer. When the said cheque was deposited by the complainant on 06.12.2019 the banker has returned the said cheque on 26.09.2019 without clearance and reasons that, “36-wrongly delivered not drawn on us”. The period of agreement is over between O.Ps and the complainant above named on 16.09.2019 but till date, the complainant could not be able to get entire benefits as per said agreement committed by the O.Ps and facing untoward problems and irreparable agonies financially, physically and mentally day in day. The complainant issued a Demand Notice dated 08.12.2019 through Registered Post/AD through a leading Consumer Protection Organization VEDIC, Berhampur to the O.Ps and copy to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi which was posted on 11.12.2019. The O.Ps did not choose to claim the said notice of the complainant and returned but the notice which was issued to the Ministry Corporate Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi has not been returned till date. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay cheque amounting of Rs.4,86,642/- with 12% interests per annum from the dare of dishonored of cheque to the complainant, Compensation of Rs.1,21,660.50 and litigation costs of Rs.60,830.25/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The delay in filling of the present consumer complaint is condoned in accordance to the order in SMWP(C) No.: 3 of 2020. Accordingly, notice was issued to the O.Ps but they neither appear nor filed any written version.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.3,72,600.00 and entitled to receive Rs.4,86,642.00 from the O.Ps. Though notice was sent by this Ld. District CDR Commission, Ganjam Berhampur for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.
Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.4,86,642.00 only along with 7% interest per annum to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 01.01.2021 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 30.10.2023.
