DATE OF FILING : 28-03-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 21-05-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-06-2013.
Md. Rezaul Islam,
s/o. Hayat Ali Gasi,
Village – Joygram, P.O C hakpatli,
P.S. Hasnabad,
District – 24 Parganas ( N ),
PIN – 743426.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Syed Mir Morsed Ali,
s/o. late Syed Anoar Ali,
village – Mainan, P.O Khariop,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711401. -----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Md. Rezaul Islam by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,
1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to return the maturity amount of Rs. 43,150/- and to pay compensation and litigation costs incidental to this case.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant, on being persuaded by the agent,
namely, Kalyan Takul, started depositing in the Furore Housing Finance and Investment ( India ) Ltd. as a daily small investor. And O.P. is the Managing Director of the said company, named, Syed Mir Morshed Ali also issued money receipts showing such small deposits vide annexure xerox copies of the money receipts in respect of complainant’s account being no. CTD/6287. And complainant continued to deposit his hard-earned money for long eleven years. And when he approached O.P. for necessary payment, he was given a maturity slip for an amount of Rs. 43,150/- to be paid on 28-08-2002. But even after the expiry of that date, complainant was not given the maturity value of Rs. 43,150/- till the filing of this case by the O.P. Before investing, complainant did enquire about the status of the company run by the O.P. wherefrom he came to know that the company was having licence duly approved by India Government for accepting such small investment and also it was approved to run such home finance and assistance providing business, having registration no. as 2150203 and established on 21-11-1990. So, it is quite understandable that after going through enough verification procedures, complainant started depositing his hard-earned money as a poor small investor. And when he came to know that the said company has winded up its business, he moved from one person to another attached with that company to realize his maturity amount but besides humiliation, he did not get any positive result. And he pursued his aim of realizing the same tirelessly since 2008. But his all efforts went in vain. Even O.P. advertised in some daily newspaper that the company will reopen and payment would be made in due course only to mislead and deceive the investors. Finding no other alternative and being frustrated and aggrieved, complainant filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service, against O.P.
3. Notices were served upon o.p. but none appears and filed written version. Accordingly, the case heard ex parte.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O. s. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully
gone through the complaint / petition, annexures and the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his allegation levelled against O.P. If any investment is accepted from a person with the assurance that on or after maturity date, the maturity amount would be given to the investors and that assurance is not complied with by the company or the person who received such investment, it is nothing but deficiency on the part of the person who received that investment. Here in this case, O.P. did not even care to appear before this Forum even after receiving summon of this Forum. And no written version was even filed on his behalf from which it is crystal clear that he has nothing to put forward in his favour. And the allegations of the complainant against O.P. remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. We have no difficulty to accept the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. Accordingly the case succeeds.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 93 of 2013 ( HDF 93 of 2013 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 43,150/- to the complainant.
That the complainant do get an award of Rs 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs from the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 73,150/- to the complainant within one month i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.
That the o.p. is further directed to deposit Rs. 30,000/- to the State Consumer Welfare Fund U/S 14 (1)(hb ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) within one month from this order i.d., 10% p.a. interest for harassing a lot of alike consumers.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) (T.K. Bhattacharya )
Member, Member, President,
C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah
