DATE OF FILING : 27-10-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 25-03-2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 15-01-2016.
- Krishnendu Samaddar
Son of late Rabindranath Samaddar,by religion Hindu,
By occupation Service,
- Susmita Samaddar,
Wife of Krishnendu Samaddar, by religion Hindu,
Both residing at 40/5, Dharmadas Kundu Lane, P.S Shibpur
District Howrah, Pin-711102…………………………………..COMPLAINANT.
1. PAILAN PARK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LTD.,
having its registered office at 127, Kankulia Road,
Kolkata 700029 AND having its branch office at 38, Nabin Mukherjee Lane, P.O and P.S Shibpur,
District Howrah-711102………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainants, 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 all amount with respect to bond certificate together with due interest/bonus, to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainants made investment in a bond of o.p. company. The o.p. issued certificate vide Annexure in favour of the complainants which isas follows :
Bond no…………1) MS02116957 DATED 20/03/2012
- O.P promised to pay the maturity amounts being Rs.40,000 of the certificate on respective due date which fell on 08/02/2014. But o,p did not care to pay the same showing utter negligence towards the complainant. Complainant repeatedly went to the office of o.ps but on different pleas they have returned the complainant without giving his financial benefit since maturity. It is further stated by the complainant that due to this non action and gross negligence on the part of the o.p., complainant had been compelled to face tremendous problem due to scarcity of money with which she was supposed to meet his day to day expenditure, medical expenditure, children’s education etc. which are really at stake. So, finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notice was served. O.p appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- 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 w/v, evidence filed by o.p and noted their contents. Complainants invested Rs. 40,000/- in total in the o.p’s. company for which o.p promised to refund Rs.40,000 on the date of maturity. It is a fact that o.p. has failed to pay the said amount with respect to the certificate in question 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 promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour of complainants .Denying and disputing all allegations, they took a specific plea that certain writ petitions bearing nos. 31611 of 2014,34339(w) of 2014, 27330(w) of 2015, W.P 11795 (W) of 2015 and an order has been passed whereby o.p has been restrained from disposing of and/or alienating its assets. They have filed that annexures like ‘A’, ‘B’ etc. with hier BNA. document. Moreover,no restraining order of any higher Forum finds place on record whereby we could have restrained ourselves from adjudicating these issues. For o.p’s gross negligence in discharging duties, complainants 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.p’ssevere negligence, complainants are, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. O.p. has 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 against O.P. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 558 of 2014 ( HDF 558 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.40,000 to the complainants in terms of the certificate in question within one month from this order i.d., @ 8% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire amount till actual payment.
The complainant do get an award of Rs.2000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 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 @ 8% 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.
