DATE OF FILING                    :     09-07-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      12-09-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER       :     15-12-2014.  

1. Santosh Chowdhury,

residing at 15/2/1, Shyamcharan Chowdhury Lane, Salkia,

District Howrah.

1. Rina Roy,

   wife of Satyajit Roy,

   residing at 34/35, Bijay Kumar Mukherjee Road, Salkia,

   Howrah.

1. Baby Chowdhury,

   wife of Sri Binod Chowdhury,

   residing at 15/2/1, Shyamcharan  Chowdhury Lane, Salkia,

   District Howrah.

1. Anna Khanra,

   wife of Sri  Chandu Khanra,

   residing at 43 Tripura  Roy Lane, Salkia,

   Howrah.

1. Jayanta Mukherjee,

   son of late Prakashmoy Mukherjee,

   residing at 40/A, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, Budgbudge,

   Kolkata.

1. SanjayChatterjee,

   son of late Sarat Chatterjee,

   residing at Dreamz Ashiyana 150 Kalikapur,

   Kolkata.

1. Unni Krishnan Bhaskaram Nair,

   son of Mr. Bhaskaran Nair,

   residing at  Charu Villa Puthenvwdu,  Nalapperor,

   Manjaphra, Kerala.

1. Sanjay Majumdar,

   son of  late Santosh Majumdar,

   residing at 64/2, Bosepukur  Road,

   Kolkata.

1. Partha Sarathi Paul,

   son of late Dr. S.K. Paul,

   residing at 15/2/1, Shyamcharan Chowdhury Lane, Salkia,

   Howrah.

1. Biswajit Datta,

   son of late Meghnath Dutta,

   residing at 18/2/1, Baikuntha Chatterjee Lane,

   Howrah

   being represented by their constituted attorney

   viz. Smt.  Sukanya Kumar,

   wife of Kalyan Kishore Kumar,

   residing at 73, Upendranath Mitra Lane, Salkia,

District Howrah,

PIN 711112. . ……………………………………………..     COMPLAINANTS.

• 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,  residing at 49, Kailas Basu lane,

  P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. ……………………………………….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. Complainants,ten in numbers,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) have  prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund the maturity amount of Rs. 4,08,320/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-  along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2. Brief fact of the case is that complainants madeinvestments in the scheme of recurring deposit and fixed deposit scheme of o.p. vide annexures. The o.p.issued certificates in favour of the complainants which are as follows :

1. Santosh ChowdhuryRecurring Deposit A/c no. 27693,

1. Rina Roy Recurring Deposit A/c no. 25114,

1. Baby ChowdhuryRecurring Deposit A/c nos. 25116, 16862, 00145,

1. Anna KhanraRecurring Deposit A/c no. 19542, .

1. Jayanta MukherjeeFixed Deposit A/c no.27553,

1. SanjayChatterjee Fixed Deposit A/c no. 25911,

1. Unni Krishnan Bhaskaram Nair Recurring Deposit A/c no. 29518,

1. Sanjay MajumdarRecurring Deposit A/c no. 25912,

    

2. Partha Sarathi Paul Monthly Recurring Deposit A/c no. 146997,

3. Biswajit Datta Recurring Deposit A/c no. 27554.

3. O.P.promised to pay the maturity amount of the investments made by the complainants in different schemes. Since the month of March, 2014 the opposite party did not pay single furthing towards the maturity amounts of some complainants. Subsequently  they  went to the office of o.ps. for  several times but  they could understand that the o.ps. are trying to shut down their local office. Subsequently some more investments of other complainants also got matured but no maturity payment was made to the complainants. So, finding no other alternative, complainants  filed this instant  petition praying for the aforesaid relief. 

4. Notice was served.O.p. neither appearedn or filed any written version.

Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.

5. Two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainants and noted its contents. Complainants invested money in different schemes viz. Monthly Recurring Deposit and Fixed Deposit issued by theo.ps. company. It is a fact that o.ps. have failed to pay the maturity amount of the investment since March, 2014 for which complainants 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 hispromise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour ofcomplainant. For their gross negligence in discharging duties, complainants had tosuffer a lot for the crying need of money. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, complainants made those investments foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.ps.’severe negligence, complainants are, 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 complainants.O.p. has miserably failedto keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency inservice coupled with unfair trade practiceon theirpart 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 complainantsshould be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 384  of 2014 ( HDF 384  of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P.     

      That the  O.P.  is  directed   to pay the maturity  amount of investments in terms of all the certificates in question  held by the complainants within one month from this order  i.d., @ 10% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amount till actual payment.

      The complainants do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost and o.p.  is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 15,000/- same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment

      The complainants are 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.,