DATE OF FILING : 18-07-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 17-09-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 18-01-2013.
Himadri Paul,
Pampa Paul,
Niranjan Paul &
Haradhan Paul of village – Bankara Mishrapara,
P.O. Bankra, P.S. Domjur,
District –Howrah.------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
1. Syed Murshed Ali,
s/o. late Anwar Ali,
The Managing Director,
representing M/S. Furore Housing Finance
& Investment ( I ) Ltd., of village – Moinan,
P.O. Choroid, P.S. Jaypur (Amta),
District – Howrah.
2. Sayed Ashifuddwla,
s/o. Syed Murshed Ali,
representing M/S. Furore Housing Finance & Investment (I) Ltd.
of village – Moinan, P.O. Khoriop, P.S. Jaypur ( Amta ),
District – Howrah. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
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
The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the O.P. Syed Murshed Ali to pay the maturity value of the daily deposit scheme run by the o.p. company amounting to Rs. 48,274/- and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- together with litigation costs of Rs. 1,000/- as the o.ps. suddenly stopped collection and in spite of repeated requests the o.p. company did not return the amount to the account holders namely the complainants.
The o.p. company in filing written version denied all the material
allegations and challenged the complaint as it is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the records it appears that Himadri Paul deposited Rs. 5,000/-, Pampa Paul Rs. 5,000/-, Niranjan Paul Rs. 10,000/- and Haradhan Paul Rs. 4,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of the o.p. company. As the o.p. in spite of filing written version did not appear for placing his argument, the documents placed on behalf of the complainant go unchallenged. In view of unchallenged testimony we arrive at the conclusion that the o.ps. in spite of receiving the fixed deposit scheme did not pay up the maturity value to the complainants. The complainants being the consumers in terms of Section 2(1)(d) and there occurred gross deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) of the Act the o.ps. have no other alternative than to escape the rigours of law. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 76 of 2012 ( HDF 76 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest as against the O.P. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2 with costs.
The O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs. 48,274/- to the complainants together with the interest @ 12% per annum since the date of deposit within one month from the date of this order.
The o.ps. be further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants together with litigation costs of Rs. 1,000/- within one month from the date of this order.
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.
