The petitioner, has filed the instant case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party 1, Secretary Guskara Uttaran Yuva Gosthi, P.O. + P.S. Burdwan and Branch Manager, Guskara Uttaran Yuva Gosthi, herein OP 2.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 17,000/- with OP 2 on 07.12.12 and OP 2 acknowledged the amount by way of receipt (575 dtd. 07.12.12). OP 2 also issued a pass book in the petitioner’s name wherefrom one can find that a person called Tarak Halder who happened to be a employee of OP 2 collected the sum of Rs. 17000/-. OP 2 promised to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 50,000/- against his deposit within a short period of time. Petitioner went to the OP’s office several times for getting back the deposit money but they denied to return the same. Lastly, again on 15.09.14 when OP 2 refused to refund the amount the petitioner finding no other alternative decided to take the help of the Forum and hence, the instant case. The petitioner has prayed before the Forum the following relief.
(1) Direction upon the OPs to refund Rs. 17000/- along with interest as per Govt. Rules.
(2) Direction upon the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with litigation cost.
The record transpires that the OP 1 did not appear even after publishing the notice to News Paper so the Forum decided to run the case exparte against them on 18.05.15 (order No. 10).
OP No. 2 appeared and got ample opportunity to file their written version but did not do so till 16.07.15 when the Forum decided to run the case exparte against this OP 2 vide order No. 5.
Considering the complaint petition, affidavit-in-chief and documents filed by the petitioner we frame the following issues for adjudication of the case.
1) Whether the petitioner a consumer under the OPs?
2) Whether the OP suffers from deficiency in service?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OP as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
- The petitioner is a consumer under the OPs under Section 2(d)(ii) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the OPs as he has made a deposit of Rs. 17,000/- to get back a sum of Rs. 50,000/- after a considerable period of time. Hence, OP in this case is a service provider engaged in providing financing services as per Section 2(o) of the referred Act.
2 & 3
The OPs got several opportunity to defend themselves but did not file their version. From the face of the documents with appears that the petitioner deposited Rs.17,000/- but did not get a single premmi and moreover the principal amount which is still lying with the OPs would have fetched a handsome return if invested elsewhere. The petitioner’s loss is two fold, firstly he is not getting back the money which he invested from his own savings and secondly the notional interest. All the financial loss and the mental agony of the petitioner are due to the OPs and hence, OPs are deficient in their services and bound to compensate the petitioner.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/148 be and the same is allowed on exparte against the OPs with cost.
The OPs are jointly or severally liable to pay Rs. 17,000/- to the petitioner along with interest of 9% from 07.12.12 within one month from the date of order along with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- in default the total decretal amount of Rs. 22,000/- (Rs. 17,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 2,000/-) will carry an interest of 18% instead of 9% from 07.12.12 till the date of final payment.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
