FINAL ORDER
The complainant Sri Ramanath Paul has filed the present case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P to return the policy maturity amount to the complainant also to pay compensation for deficiency in service, adopting Unfair Trade Practice along with litigation cost etc. amounting to Rs.2,63,499/- in total and other relief(s) as the Forum may deem feet and proper.
The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 172000/- at the branch of the Opposite Party through Axis Bank, Cooch Behar in the Account of the Branch Manager, Dinhata Branch bearing No. 909010042904707 on 22.05.2013 under Fixes Deposit Scheme for six months and the Opposite Party issued a fixed deposit certificate. The maturity amount of the said deposit was Rs. 193499. The Complainant invested the said money for earning his livelihood. After maturity period Complainant submitted original certificate before the Opposite Party on 02.01.2014 but the Opposite Party did not return the maturity amount to the Complainant even after repeated persuasion. The Complainant suffered mental pain and agonies due to such negligent act and conduct of the Opposite Parties which certainly falls under the definition of Deficiency in Service. Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case seeking relief (S) as stated above.
The complainant filed the instant Case No. DF-46/2014 with enclosed some Xerox copy of documents together with I.P.Os. of Rs.100/- before this Forum for redress of the dispute.
In the present case the Opposite Party after receiving the notice appeared through Ld. Agent, took several times to file Written Version but ultimately failed and after certain period remained absent for which this case proceeded with Ex-parte against the Opposite Party.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service not returning the maturity amount to the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also peruse the Evidence on affidavit of the Complainant. Heard the Ex-parte argument and peruse the original document filed by the Complainant.
Point No.1 & 2.
On perusal the record it appears that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- in the account of the Opposite Party i.e. Partha Bagchi the alleged Branch Manager of Poulami Service Co-operative Society Ltd. in view to fixed the said amount for six months therefore it can be safely said that the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite Party.
Further, the complaint value is Rs. 2,63,499/- i.e. far less amount of the prescribed limit and the Opposite Party is the resident of this District. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion. The Annexure “A”, reveals that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- in the name of the Opposite Party. It appears from Annexure “A/1” that the Complainant deposited the said amount under the Fixed Deposit Scheme with assurance to return Rs. 1,93,199/- on23.11.2013. The Annexure “B” goes to show that the Opposite Party received all the original documents from the Complainant on 02.01.2014.
It is pertinent to mention that in this case the Opposite Party, The Manager of Poulami Service Co-Operative Society Ltd. namely Partha Bagchi appeared after getting notice from this Forum, took several times to file Written Version but failed and further did not appear before this Forum. The non appearance of O.P. and non-contesting the case clearly established that the O.P. has nothing to challenge the allegation of the Complainant brought against him. It is also crystal clear that the O.P. wanted to deprive the Complainant using the same style of other Money marketing agencies like Sarada, Royal International Trading Company, Blue Shine and etc.etc.
In the light of the foregoing discussion it is established that the Complainant deposited the alleged amount to the Opposite Party and the O.P. did not return the Maturity Amount after expiry of maturity period, as we have nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged documents produced by the Complainant. Deficiency in service of the O.P. is proved beyond any manner of doubt and the Complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation.
Thus, the Complaint succeeds on its merit.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That DF Case No.46/2014 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs. 5000/- payable to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
The O.P. is here by directed to return the Complainant Rs. 1,72,000/- the deposited amount with interest @ 6% from 23.11.2013 with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
The O.P. is further directed to pay the ordered amount with cost to the Complainant within 45 days failure of which the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Welfwre Fund.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
