For the Complainant - Mr. Avijit Bhuina, Advocate
For The Ops - Mr. Kingshuk Karmkar, Advocate
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in a nutshell; is that she deposited Rs. 16,000/- with the OP on 27.12.2011 and the OP issued one certificate bearing No.411002220085 in her favour. Such amount was deposited to the O.P with a hope to get monthly return and with further assurance to get withdrawal of principal amount at any point of time within 24 hours from the date of intimation. Complainant is a widow and cancer patient. She has no source of income to maintain herself including her family members. For paucity of fund she was compelled to obtain unsecured loan for marriage of her daughter. She had been to the office of OP to get refund of the deposited amount and also returned with lots of assurance. The OP failed and neglected to refund the deposited amount. She came to know from the agent of the OP that the O.P Company is running from various financial paucities. Finding no other alternative, she was compelled to issue legal notice dated 08.05.2019 to the OP which was duly served. Neither the OP refund the principal amount of Rs. 16,000/- nor replied the legal notice. Complainant alleged that the acts, activities and conduct of the OP constitute a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to make payment of principal amount of Rs. 16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. till the date of making payment including compensation of Rs. 16,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The OP has contested the case by filing WV contending inter-alia, that the consumer complaint is mis-conceived and groundless. The specific case of the OP is that the relationship between the parties is debtor and creditor. The transaction between the parties is a commercial transaction and if the complainant has any grievance, in that event she should redressed the grievance before the competent Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Thus, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Decision with Reasons
Complainant Smt. Beauty Das has filed her evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has taken us through the consumer complaint as also evidence adduced in support of the complaint. On perusal of the photocopy of certificate bearing No. 411002220085, it appears that the complainant deposited Rs. 16,000/- to the OP on 27.12.2011 and the maturity date of the subject certificate is 27.12.2026. Complainant is a widow and also cancer patient. On account of paucity of fund, she was compelled to obtain unsecured loan for marriage of her only daughter and requested the OPs to refund the pre-matured amount of Rs.16,000/-. The OP Company is running from various financial paucities and not in a position to refund the principal amount. Photocopy of legal notice dated 08.05.2019, goes to show that the complainant through her Advocate call upon the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. within 15 days from the date of service of notice. Despite service of notices, the OP did not refund the principal amount to the complainant. Thus, it stands to prove that the OP has failed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 16,000/- to the complainant against certificate No. 411002220085. In absence of any explanation, failure to comply the legal notice dated 08.05.2019, we have no hesitation in concluding that the OP has committed deficiency in service as also has indulged unfair trade practice. We do not find any reason why the OP collected the amount from the complainant by issuing certificate and hold the amount as per their own discretion. The complainant is a widow and also a cancer patient. She needs money for her medical treatment and livelihood.
Now, the question as to what should be the amount of compensation to be granted to the complainant? The Ld. Advocate for the complainant however, has pressed interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs. 16,000/- including compensation of Rs. 16,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-. In our opinion, the claim of interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. and compensation of Rs. 16,000/- is too much excessive. In our considered view, it would adequately meet ends of justice, if simple interest at the rate of 6 percent p.a. and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation are allowed on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by complainant.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the consumer complaint is allowed in part on contest against the OP with the following directions:-
- The OP is directed to refund principal amount of Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand) only to the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 27.12.2011 till actual payment.
- The OP is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation in the form of interest on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
- The OP is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The above directions be complied by the OP within a period of 15 days from today, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the OP.
Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
