Presented by: -

                   Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.

Complaint Case No. 130/2018

The complainants have instituted this instant  complaint case against the OPs for their gross deficiency in service  in respect of non making payment  of the maturity amount  to the complainant No. 1 Rs. 17,797/-, complainant No. 2 Rs. 10,661, complainant No. Rs. 3 Rs. 24,886/-, complainant no. 4 Rs. 24,810/-, complainant No. 5 Rs. 12,000/-, complainant No. 6 Rs. 9,000/- , complainant No. 7 Rs. 16,915/-, complainant No. 8 Rs. 18,000/-, complainant No. 9 Rs. 4,000/-  & complainant No. 10 Rs. 11,004/- and for awarding  compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing physical  and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Fact of this case

Case of the complainant

The  complainants are the investors  under the OPs  and the complainant invested  their money in this scheme  of OPs i.e. Fixed Deposit, Recurring Deposit  of the OPs as the OPs approached to the complainants  with a request  / proposal  to the complainants for investing  their money in the said scheme of the OPs and the complainants  would get maturity benefits  and  / or services from the OPs and after accepting  the proposal the complainants invested a good amount of money at the scheme  of the OPs.  Submitted that the complainants  from their hard earned  savings  invested the said amount with  a hope that they would get maturity benefit at the time of maturity  and accordingly their rest lives would be spent very smooth but thereafter the OPs neither has made any payment of the maturity benefits  nor responded  to the request of the complainants and as such the complainant has become painstaking  and  suffered mental  pain and agony .  It is alleged that the OPs have made their lives miserable  and the OPs have put a question   mark on the rest lives  of the complainants  and at present the standard  of living of the  complainants are depending upon the said refund  of the maturity amount alongwith normal rate of interest  from which they would be able to make payment of the maturity money  otherwise the complainants would have to beg from door to door for their rest lives.  It is further alleged  that the complainants went to the office of the OPs to collect  their maturity amount but the OPs have not paid any money to the complainants  according to the case of the complainant , the said amount are very much required in the complainants  for their medical purpose  and other purposes.  It is also pointed out that on several occasions the complainants requested  the OPs by producing medical papers for granting the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit but their appeal ended in vain.  For all these reasons  the complainants have instituted this complaint case against the OPs as per prayer of the complaint petition.

Defence Case

The  OPs in spite of servicing of notice have neither  appeared nor have filed any W/V  to oppose the case of the complainants.  As a result of which this case has been heard in ex-parte against the OPs.

Framing  of issues

On the basis of the pleading  adopted by the complainant side  in this case,  this District Commission for the purpose   of arriving at just and proper decision in this complaint case  and  also for  proper  and complete adjudication  of this case, is going to adopt the following points of consideration :-

             (i)        Has this District Commission jurisdiction to try this case or not ?

(ii)       Is this case maintainable  in its present form and in the eye of law?

(iii)  Whether  the complainants are the consumers under the OPs or not?

            (iv)      Is there any cause of action for the complainants for filing this case or not?

 (v)   Whether the complainants are entitled to get the claim amount from the OPs or not?

 (vi)     To what other relief / reliefs the complainants are entitled to get in this case?

Evidence on  record

In order to prove the case complainant side has submitted evidence on affidavit  and against the said evidence on affidavit  no questionnaire has been filed by the OPs as the OPs  are not contested  in this case.

Argument  highlighted  in this case

At the time of argument the  complainant side  has filed BNA  in spite of sufficient  opportunity  the OPs have not filed any BNA.  Ld. Advocate  for the complainant side also highlighted  verbal argument  in addition to the BNA filed in this case .

Decision with reasons

The first four points of consideration have been framed  in this case  on the ground of jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action and over the issue  whether the complainants are the consumers under the OPs or not  and these four points of consideration are  very vital points  and they would play crucial role in the matter of determination of the fate of this case.  So, these points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted four points of consideration, there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the material of this case record and at the same time there is also urgent necessity of scanning the evidence on record.  In this regard  this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainants are the resident of Bagnan within the District of Howrah and the OP No. 2 is running business  within the District of Howrah.  This factor  is clearly reflecting that this District Commission has its territorial jurisdiction.    Relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction  this District Commission after making scrutiny  of the pleading of the complainant side finds that the total claim of the complainant is far below than that of the pecuniary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- which is embodied  in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  This factor is clearly highlighting  that this District Commission has its pecuniary jurisdiction as well.

Now the question is whether this complaint case is maintainable in the eye of law or not.  In this connection this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainants have made Fixed Deposit  in various schemes  of the OPs according to the proposal  of the OPs  and the OPs have also received  the said amount of the Fixed Deposit .  But fact remains  that after the maturity of the Fixed Deposit the OPs have not returned  the total maturity value and interest  to the complainants.  This factor is clearly highlighting that the complainants have their cause of action for filing this case against the OPs and this case is also maintainable  according to the provision of Section 2 within (1) (d)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Now the question is whether the complainants are the consumers under the OPs or not .  In order to decide this question this District Commission has already  observed  the fact that the complainants according to the proposal of the OPs  have made Fixed Deposit  in various schemes  under the OPs  but after the maturity period the OPs have not refunded  the said maturity value  of the Fixed Deposit schemes  in favour of the complainants.  This factor is clearly depicting  that the complainants  are the consumers under the OPs.

Thus the above noted points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant side.

Now the question is whether  the complainants are entitled to get the maturity  value of the Fixed Deposit  schemes  which have been opened  under the OPs or not .  In order to decide the answer of this question this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainant side in support of their case have adduced  evidence and on close examination of the said evidence on record this District Commission noticed  that the evidence  which has been adduced  by the complainants is nothing  but the replica of the fact impleaded  in the complaint petition.  In other wards it can be said that the complainants by way of giving satisfactory evidence has proved the case that they have not received the maturity value  of this Fixed Deposit which they have made under the Ops.  In this regard it is very important to note that the OPs  in spite of getting sufficient opportunity have not filed any interrogatories  against the  evidence of the complainant side and this matter is clearly reflecting  that the evidence which is given by the complainant side  remains  unchallenged  and uncontroverted.  This District Commission after making scrutiny  of the material of this case record  as well as the evidence on record finds no reason to  disbelieve  the unchallenged  and uncontroverted testimony  of the complainant side.  By virtue of giving  such reliable evidence the complainant side has proved the case ex-parte against the Ops  and so the complainants are entitled to get refund  of the maturity value  of the amount  which they have made Fixed Deposit  in various schemes  under the OPs and thus the points of  consideration Nos. 5 & 6 are decided in favour of the complainant side.

But fact remains that the complainant’s evidence has not been supported by any other corroborative evidence in respect of the claim of the complainant’s compensation.  So, this District Commission is not inclined to pass any order  in respect of the compensation.

Thus the points of consideration Nos. 5 & 6  are decided in favour of the complainants but in part.

In the result, it is accordingly,

ORDERED

That this Complaint Case being No. 130/2018 be and the same is allowed ex-parte  but in part.

It is held that the complainant No. 1 is entitled to get Rs. 17,797/-, the complainant No. 2 is entitled to get Rs. 10,661/-,  the complainant No. 3 is entitled to get Rs. 24,886, the complainant No. 4 is entitled to get Rs. 24,810/-, the complainant No. 5 is entitled to get Rs. 12,000/-, the complainant No. 6 is entitled to get Rs. 9,000/-, the complainant No. 7 is entitled to get Rs. 16,915/-, the complainant No.  8 is entitled to get Rs. 18,000/-, the complainant No. 9 is entitled to get Rs. 4,000/- and the complainant No. 10 is entitled to get Rs. 11,004/-  from the OPs . So, the OPs are directed to refund the said amount to the complainant Nos. 1 to 10 within two months from the date of this final order / judgment .  Otherwise the complainants are given liberty to execute this award  as per law.

The parties of this case are entitled to get a free copy of this judgment as early as possible.

Let this judgment / final order be uploaded in the official website of this District Commission immediately.

Dictated & corrected by me

  President