DATE OF FILING : 25-04-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 25-06-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 07-11-2014.
Arjun Handa,
son of Sri Nandalal Handa,
residing at Barbahala, Mecheda, Kolaghat,
Midnapore ( E ) – 721137.---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
NVD SOLAR LIMITED,
having its regional office
at Mankur More, Bagnan, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711303 and head office at 24/A, Karnani Estate,
209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017,
being represented by its Managing Director
viz. Shri Saibal Kumar Hazra, having its office at
24/A, Kamani Estate, 209, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Kolkata – 700017.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, namely Arjun Handa, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P.
Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 4,44,000/-, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant made investments in the scheme of monthly interest scheme, recurring deposits of o.p. The o.p. issued certificates vide Annexures P/1 to P/2 in favour of the complainant which are as follows :
Shri Arjun Handa Policy No. 823346-400/1602,
Policy No. 645760-400/1602.
3. O.P. promised to pay the monthly interest on the due dates to the
complainant and upto June, 2013 they paid the same regularly. Complainant repeatedly went to the office of o.ps but on different dates in August, 2013 and November, 2013 but on different pleas they have returned the complainant without giving their monthly interest amount. It is further stated by the complainant that due to this non action and gross negligence on the part of the o.p., complainant has been compelled to face tremendous problem due to scarcity of money with which he was supposed to meet his day to day expenditure, medical expenditure, children’s education etc. which are really at stake. And when complainant went to the office of the o.ps. on 27-12-2013, he could understand that the o.ps. are trying to shut down their local office. So, finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
4. Notice was served. O.p. neither appeared nor filed any written version.
Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainant and noted its contents. Complainant invested Rs. 3,90,000/- in total in the o.ps. company. It is a fact that o.ps. have failed to pay the monthly interest since July, 2013 for which complainant felt tremendous monetary problem. Because, people invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. O.p. has miserably failed to keep his promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour of complainant. For their gross negligence in discharging duties, complainant had to suffer a lot for the crying need of money. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, complainant made those investments foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.ps.’ severe negligence, complainant is, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. Moreover, the o.p. has not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 247 of 2014 ( HDF 247 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to pay the principal amount of 3,90,000/- along with upto date monthly due interest in terms of the certificate in question within one month from this order i.d., @ 10% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amount till actual payment.
No order as to compensation.
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost and o.p. is directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
