DATE OF DISPOSAL: 14.12.2023.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief 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 O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. One of the agent of the O.Ps persuaded the complainant to deposit Rs.30,000/- for 36th months by so as to receive Rs.46,080/-. The complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- on 30.09.2016 vide Receipt No. 665007628068 Certificate No.605001077826 Membership No. 611396003727 & Rs.15,000/- on 30.09.2016 vide Receipt No.665007628107 Certificate No.605001077844 Membership No.611396003753 respectively. The scheme features are explained in detail in the reverse of certificate on which complainant is entitled for Rs.46,080/- on 30.09.2019. After passing of the maturity period of 36 months the complainant approached the office of O.P.No.2 for payment of Rs.46,080/- as per conditions in aforesaid certificate for five times who promised to make payment of the same. Even after passing of time, the O.Ps have neither paid the maturity amount of Rs.46,080/- nor observed the contents laid in the scheme features as per the “Account Settlement Chart” which also allow additional interest if paid after the schedule period. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.46,080/- only along with additional interest as per scheme features, Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for harassment causing mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version. Hence all the O.Ps set exparte on dated 22.03.2021.
4. To set-aside the exparte order dated:22.03.2021, the opposite party appeared on 25.03.2021 through its Advocate and also filed set-aside petition but it was disallowed on 06.04.2021 as the Commission has no jurisdiction to review its own order.
5. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit, documents as per list and written notes of argument.
6. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard from the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. The complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- on 30.09.2016 vide Receipt No. 665007628068 Certificate No.605001077826 Membership No. 611396003727 & Rs.15,000/- on 30.09.2016 vide Receipt No.665007628107 Certificate No.605001077844 Membership No.611396003753 respectively. But after passing of the maturity period of 36th months i.e., 30.09.2019, the O.Ps have not paid the maturity amount of Rs.46,080/-.
We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.Ps to defend the case but they failed to do so. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration it is presumed that the complainant’s contention is true.
7. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the Ops are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
8. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, both parties are found absent on repeated calls. But in view of the statutory provisions of the Act, 1986, the Commission decided to dispose of the case on merit. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.30,000/- on dated 30.09.2016 and entitled to receive Rs.46,080/- from the O.P on 30.09.2019. But the opposite parties have not taken any tangible steps to inform the maturity date and refund of the maturity amount as per commitment to the complainant rather the Complainant made his best efforts to get back the maturity amount of the deposits. The law is well settled that, non-payment of the maturity amount on the date of matured and thereafter within a reasonable period is tantamount to deficiency in services. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant into 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 mentioned supra, the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.46,080/- 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.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 9% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 20.10.2020 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realisation of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.
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, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 14.12.2023
