For the complainant: Self

For the O.Ps.        :  Not appeared.

                                         JUDGEMENT.

Sri A.K.Patra,President

The  crux of the case is that  the complainant has filed this complaint  alleging deficiency in service  against  aforementioned Opposite Party    for  non payment of maturity amount   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the  O.Ps.  neither  appeared before the Commission  nor filed their  written version in spite of several adjournments granted by this Commission as such the case was heard from the Complainant  in absence of the Opposite Party. We therefore proceeded to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

        From the  documents filed by the complainant it reveals that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.30000/- under Sahara Special Fix scheme  of the Opposite Parties  vide Certificate  No.787001474463 dt.09.06.2018,another Rs.31,000/- vide Certificate No. 787001474464 dt.09.06.2018 and Rs.30,000/- vide Certificate No. 787001474465dt.09.06.2018  which got maturity on 09.12.2019 and the maturity value is Rs.35130/-, Rs.36301/- & Rs.35130/- respectively .In support of  deposit the Complainant  has  filed  copies of    Certificates. After the due of maturity  the complainant approached to the Opposite Party several times  for payment of maturity amount  but the Opposite Party  did not listen to the claim of the complainant   and refused to make payment.

Here the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .The opposite party have neither    disputed nor  produce any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian evidence Act. Law is well settled that  every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability. Where the O.p has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in  M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).

We relied upon the judgment  reported in CCC 2005 page No. 192 (SS) where  the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Maharashtra  observed “ Consumer Protection Act,1986- Section 2(1)(O)- service-Co-operative society-service rendered by a  Credit Society in accepting deposits from the investors falls within definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act,1986.

        In the given facts and circumstances of the case we deem that the retention of deposited  amount  by the Opposite Party for  such a long time  amounted to  deficiency in service as defined  U/S Sec.2(11)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. And includes (i) any action negligence of omission or commission by such person which cause loss or injury to the consumer (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.

This Commission found the  act of withholding  payment  by the Opposite Party is not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is  gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party . Hence the complainant deserves to be compensated. In our view the interest of justice  would met if this Commission  award accrued  interest  from the date of maturity  till its realization.  In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and referring citations   we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                          

                                        ORDER

        In  result  the complaint petition is allowed  in  part   against the Opposite Party.   The Opposite Party is  directed   to  pay the maturity amount of   Rs.35130,Rs.36301 & Rs.35130/- which got matured on 09.12.2019   with  interest  @ Rs.12 % per annum  from the date of  maturity till realization.

Since we award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the Opposite Party  after the due date, no further compensation is awarded inter alia to pay Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

        The Opposite Party is   ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  four weeks  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order .The pending application if any is also stands disposed off.

Pronounced in open Commission today on this   23rd day of February 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

The judgment  be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and  free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission

Dictated and corrected by me.

       Sd/-
         President

I   agree.

                          Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                     Member                                           President