F I N A L   O R D E R

 Banani Mohanta(Ganguli),Member: An application has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service for non refunding of amount deposited /invested and praying for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps to pay back Rs. 18,00,000/ plus interest to the complainant, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/ for physical and mental harassment and  litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/.

The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant invested a huge sum of money to the O.ps Company in various deposits scheme from time to time, whose main business is to raise funds through collective investment scheme for the purpose of booking allotments of standard A.C room accommodation with services to the investors.

 It is the allegation of the complainant that the commissioning agent of the O.Ps approached the complainant and made proposal to the complainant to invest money to the O.Ps company and for which the O.Ps would give benefits and services and also give huge returns on maturity and being allured the complainant invested her hard earned money to the O.Ps company under various schemes, which has been provided in the complaint petition in para-5 in table form.

Further, it is the allegation of the complainant that the O.Ps are not paying any maturity amount since 2015 and also the O.Ps stopped receiving monthly deposits in recurring scheme. The complainant contacted with the O.Ps but her problem was not sorted out and no maturity benefit was given to the complainant. As per the instruction of the O.Ps, the complainant visited the Office of the O.Ps on a number of times in order to collect the maturity amount, but the O.Ps did not pay any maturity amount to the complainant which she had invested under the various schemes of the O.Ps Company.

The complainant, therefore, alleged that the O.Ps caused deficiency in service towards the complainant and adopted unfair trade practices and deceived the complainant and for the purpose of getting proper redressal she filed the case praying for returning of principal amount of Rs.17, 60,000/ + interest of Rs. 40,000/, totaling Rs.18, 00,000/+ normal rate of interest on Rs.18,00,000/ till realization of the amount and further claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/ and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/.

 The complainant in order to substantiate her claim filed some Xerox copies of certificates along with the complaint petition.

Notices were sent to the O.Ps and the O.Ps appeared before this Forum on 31.01.2017 and they filed W/V separately on 12.09.2017 as it is reflected from order No: 7 dated 12.09.2017.

 In the W/V the O.Ps mainly denied all the allegations leveled against them and stated that all the 2500 bank accounts of the O.P company have been freeze by the Economic Offence wing and enforcement Directorate and as a result of which the O.Ps company was unable to operate their bank accounts and to discharge their liability towards their investors. More so, the State of W.B imposed embargo upon the company towards sale of their property. The O.Ps company moved the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and filed an application, being W.P No: 275 of 2015, seeking permission for sell their assets and to pay the investors and the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta passed an order dated 15.05.2015 and appointed an Asset Disposal Committee who will sell the property of the company and shall pay the investors and the sale proceeds shall be with the committee.

It is further stated in the W/V that the complainant made payment for booking of hotel accommodation and the company having 22 hotels and resorts all over India and rooms can be easily provided but the complainant was not willing to avail the rooms although in the scheme providing of rooms are the main criteria of such investments but instead of that the complainant is insisting for cash which is not possible by the company under the present facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant may avail the rooms at various hotels of the company as and when she would desire.

 The O.Ps further stated that some certificates were premature one and likely to mature on 07.04.2016,07.12.2016,15.07.2018,29.12.2019 respectively so question of any claim  against those certificates does not arise at all. The complainant never approached the company for payment prior to the date of maturity nor did she make any application for pre-mature before the company so question of harassment does not arise at all. The O.Ps stated that as the several authorities imposed embargo /restrictions, the O.Ps are unable to make payment. The O.Ps are not deficient in service and pray for dismissal of the case.

During hearing of the case the complainant files one affidavit, but no original certificates were submitted. B.N.A was filed by the complainant. On the other hand, on the date of hearing the O.Ps did not appear and took no steps, therefore the case has been proceeded ex-parte against the O.Ps, as it is reflected from order No: 13 dated 25.09.2018 and order No: 14 dated 26.10.2018.

From the complaint petition, W/V, and other materials on record, the following points have been framed:-

 1. Is the complainant a consumer?

 2. Are the O.Ps deficient in providing service?

 3 .Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

All the points have been taken together for the sake of brevity and for avoidance of repetition of facts.

It is admitted position that the complainant had invested some amount of money as stated in the petition of complaint in the O.Ps Company under different schemes and the O.Ps did not pay her back the maturity amount showing some reasons in the W/V. Here the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as per the provision of Sec-2(1) (d) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

 Now we have to consider whether the O.Ps caused deficiency or not.

 From the materials on record it is seen that the complainant lodged this petition of complaint on 13.12.2016.

From the copies of documents annexed by the complainant after tallying with the Para-5 table as mentioned in the complaint petition it is found that the fixed deposit certificate being No: 042105044H09,amounting to Rs. 20,000/ was purchased on 30.11.2009 and its date of maturity was fixed on 31.05.2015 and the maturity amount was Rs.40,000/.

Further, it is found that the complainant had opened one recurring deposit account under the scheme of the O.Ps being certificate No: 04H115358010 dated 07.12.2011, wherein the complainant had to pay Rs.9000/ per installment for 40 months and the maturity amount would be Rs.4,44,000/ if  deposited all 40 installments, which was scheduled to be matured on 07.04.2016.

But apart from the certificate of Rs.9000/ as mentioned above, no receipts of monthly payment of recurring deposit has been filed and so we are unable to calculate how many installments the complainant had paid actually in respect of recurring deposit as above and ascertain the deposit made in that account, excepting the deposit of Rs.9000/, as it is reflected from the certificate only.

It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his or her case and the burden lies upon him/her. Mere pleading is not sufficed to prove the case, because pleading has no evidentiary value. The complainant has to prove the case by adducing cogent evidence. Further, it is the principle under the C.P Act, 1986 while adjudicating a consumer complaint that the Indian Evidence Act should not be followed in toto. The principle of natural justice is required to be followed. The Forum should follow the summery procedure while dealing with a consumer complaint.

In the case in hand not a single scrap of paper has been adduced by the complainant to prove that she had paid 40 installments in respect of the recurring deposits as above, barring the certificate and therefore we are unable to hold the view that the complainant had paid 40 installments and invested Rs.3,60,000/ in the said recurring deposit. We therefore, simply hold that the complainant deposited Rs.9000/ only in respect of the said recurring deposit.

Further, it is found that the fixed deposit certificate being No: 04H116185599, amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/ was purchased on 07.12.2011 and its date of maturity was fixed on 07.12.2016 and the maturity amount was Rs.3,30,000/.

All other certificates, being No: 04H129685203 dated 15.05.2015, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/ was scheduled to be matured on 15.07.2018,certificate being No:04H129652284 dated 29.12.2014, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/ was scheduled to be matured on 29.12.2019,certificate being No:04H129682265 dated 29.12.2014, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/ was scheduled to be matured on 29.12.2019,and certificate being No:04H129632287 dated 29.12.2014, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/ was scheduled to be matured on 29.12.2019.All these certificates are premature one and therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief/benefit against those certificates being premature one, as no cause of action has been started before the date of filing of this complaint petition. Not a single scrap of paper filed by the complainant from which we can deduce that the complainant had made prayer before the O.Ps for pre-mature release of those certificates.

 However liberty is given to the complainant to file a fresh case against those premature certificates after their maturity, if no payment is made by the O.Ps and if not otherwise barred by law.

As the complainant had invested money in O.Ps company being certificate No: 042105044H09, amounting to Rs. 20,000/ dated 30.11.2009 and its date of maturity was fixed on 31.05.2015 and the maturity amount was Rs.40, 000/ and further deposited Rs.9000/ as installment against the recurring deposit being certificate No: 04H115358010 dated 07.12.2011, which was scheduled to be matured on 07.04.2016 and further deposited money in the O.Ps company  being certificate being No: 04H116185599, amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/ on 07.12.2011 and its date of maturity was fixed on 07.12.2016 and the maturity amount was Rs.3,30,000/ and the O.Ps did not pay the maturity amount after their maturity and /or failed to pay the same, therefore, we are of the view that the O.Ps were deficient in providing service towards the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get the maturity benefit against those three certificates as stated above.

Further as the O.Ps failed to pay back the maturity amount to the complainant on the date/s of maturity of the certificates, the O.Ps are liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a upon the maturity amount, which shall be calculated  from the date of maturity of the respective certificate till realization.

Be it mentioned that in respect of recurring deposit being certificate No: :04H115358010 , the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 9000/plus  interest@6% p.a, which shall be  calculated  on Rs.9000/from the date of its deposit till realization.

Now, for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation we think that an amount of Rs.20,000/ is just and proper in order to commensurate the loss, sufferings sustained by the complainant and a sum of Rs. 5,000/ is further awarded on account of cost of the proceeding.

 The case of the complainant is therefore, succeeded but in part.

Hence

it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being No: C.C 370 of 2016 is allowed but in part.

 The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.40,000/in respect of certificate No: 042105044H09,and Rs.3,30,000/ in respect of certificate No: 04H116185599, to the complainant within 45 days  from the date of this order along with interest @6% p.a, which shall be calculated on maturity amount  and from the date of the maturity till realization of the respective certificate/s.

The O.Ps are further jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.9000/ in respect of certificate No: 04H115358010 plus interest@6% p.a, which shall be calculated on Rs.9000/from the date of its deposit till realization, within the aforesaid period of 45 days from the date of this order.

Further, the O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.20,000/ as compensation and Rs.5000/ as litigation cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period of 45 days.

 In default of any portion of the order, the complainant is at liberty to put the order under execution by filing an Execution Application for enforcing the order as per the provision of the C.P.Act, 1986 against the O.Ps.

Let free copies be given to the parties concerned as per the provision of the C.P.R-2005.

Dictated & Corrected by

Member