DATE OF FILING : 27-10-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 25-03-2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 15-01-2016.
Jayashri Dasgupta
Wife of Pradip Kumar Dasgupta,by religion Hindu,
By occupation Business, residing at
48 Nilkamal Chakraborty Lane, P.S and P.O 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
1. Complainant, namely, Jayashri Dasgupta 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 an amount of Rs.27,300 together with due interest/bonus with respect to her investment ,to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant madeinvestmentin two policies of o.p. company. The o.p. issued certificates vide Annexure in favour of the complainant which isas follows :
Policy nos…………1)PG01544820-20 DATED 23/04/2013
2)PD01345811-50 dated 16/10/2012
3. O.P promised to pay the maturity amounts being Rs.20,475 and Rs.6,825 of two certificates on respective due dates. 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 her 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 her 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.
4. Notice was served. O.p appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
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. ?
- Whether the complainant is 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 complainant and w/v, evidence filed by o.p and noted their contents. Complainant invested Rs. 16,000/- in total in the o.p’s. company for which o.p promised to pay Rs.27,300on 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 his promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour ofcomplainants .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 and an order has been passed whereby o.p has been restrained from disposing of and/or alienating its assets. They have even stated thatsome annexures like ‘A’, ‘B’ etc. have been filed. But on going through the record we have not found any such document.There is no restraining order of any higherForum finds place on record. 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 failedto keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency inservice coupled with unfair trade practice on 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 complainants 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. 555 of 2014 ( HDF 555 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.27,500, and all due interest/bonus,if any, to the complainant in terms of the certificates 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.
