Date of Filing : 12.10.2018

Date of Judgement : 09.12.2022

Mrs. Ashoka Guha Roy (Bera),  Hon’ble Member

            The instant case has been filed by the complaint, Smt. Fulmala Roy U/S 12 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Parties namely 1. Rahul Inn Hospitality, 2. Sri Dipankar Dutta being one of the Director of Rahul Inn Hospitality and 3. Sri Mrinmay Bose, being one of the Director of Rahul Inn Hospitality alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O Ps.

            The brief statement of the complaint is that the Complainants invested Rs. 1,00,000/- on 17.10.2012 at the O P – 1 company’s Dhupgiri branch in the O P’s Monthly Incentive Scheme for 48 months (4 years) intending to get monthly incentive of Rs, 1,250/- and after expiry of 48 months she would get principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  On receiving the amount OPs Issued a certificate being No. DHP/MIS/1012/00001, Application No.  DHP/1012/MIS/00001, Applicant No. C/DHP/000000001891.  Along with the certificate  the O P Company issued some post dated cheques of Rs. 1250/- each and a post dated cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- having dated 18.11.2016. Complainant stated that she got monthly incentives of Rs. 1,250/- for the first five consecutive months after depositing the respective cheque in O P company’s Dhupguri branch. On the sixth month when she visited the said branch wishing to deposit that month’s cheque she found that the office was under lock and key and no office bearer was present. Thereafter she tried to contact the O Ps to get back her monthly incentives for 43 months and the maturity amount but failed. She then sent a demand notice through her Ld. Advocate on 04.01.2018 which was also yielded no result. Finding no other way to get back her invested money she filed this complaint before this Commission (erstwhile Forum) with prayer for refund of balance 43 months’ monthly incentives of Rs. 1,250/- each totalling Rs. 53,750/- and her invested money of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- , litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- and other orders as this Commission may think fit.

            The Complainant submitted copies of the Certificate, money receipt and some cheques as annexure to her complaint.

            On perusal of records it appears that in spite of service of notice and repeated opportunities given no steps were taken by the OPs consequently the case proceeded ex parte. Complainant subsequently submitted Affidavit of Evidence and Brief Notes of Argument in support of her complaint.

   The only points require determination are whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.  These two points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

      Original documents in support of the complaint are taken into consideration for decision.

Decision with reasons

    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainants deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the O P-1 company on 17.10.2012 and a receipt was issued to the Complainant from RAHUL HIGH RISE LIMITED acknowledging the receipt in hand written having no serial No./Application No. Another receipt, printed in this case, was issued by RAHUL INN HOSPITALITY LIMITED bearing Receipt No. RHL/DHP/1012/MIS/00001, dated 17/10/12. It is also seen that a Certificate of Monthly Incentive Scheme was issued by RAHUL HIGH RISE LIMITED, bearing Receipt No. DHP/1012/MIS/00001. It is also found that the post dated cheques for monthly incentives and for the maturity amount, everything were issued by RAHUL HIGH RISE LIMITED. Confusion arising out of such documents could not be sorted out as the ops did not contest the case. Thus the allegations remained unchallenged.

         Complainant admitted that she got the monthly incentive of Rs. 1,250 for the first five months and the balance 43 cheques are still unpaid. Considering the original post dated cheques filed with the complaint case, it is clear that the OPs have failed to fulfil their promised assertion.  It is also clear that though ample opportunities were given OPs did not even try to counter and/or challenge the complainant’s allegations thereby proving their deficiency in rendering proper and promised services causing loss to the complainant.

            Thus this Commission thinks the complaint is maintainable on its merit and the Complainant has every right to get her grievance be redressed for such deficiency in service occurred from OPs part.

Hence,

            ORDERED

            CC/607/2018 is allowed exparte. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severely directed to refund the Principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000 together with monthly incentive unpaid for 43 months amounting to Rs.53,750/- to the complainant along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of maturity, i.e. from 18.10.2016 within three months from the date of this order in default the entire sum shall carry interest @10% p.a .till realization.

O.PS. are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within three months from the aforesaid period.

Complainants are directed to hand over the original certificate to the O Ps bearing No.DHP/1012/MIS/00001, dated 17.10.2012 and also the cheques issued by the O Ps on receipt of the full payment.