DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.07.2023

Smt. Saritri Pattanaik, Member (W)

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her  grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant is a widow and filed this complaint being legal Heir- wife of Bibhu Prasad Acharya in whose name the ‘Abode Bonds’ was issued by the O.Ps. The late Bibhu Prasad Acharya left to the abode world in Covid-19 on 17.05.2021. The late Bibhu Prasad Acharya husband of the complainant, who had deposited his hard-earned money as a onetime amount of Rs.10,000/- at the rate of Rs.1000/- each Abode Bond which is optionally fully convertible paid up “Abode Bond” of Rupees One Thousand each in the Opposite Parties, subject to the terms and conditions of Application Form and provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company- O.Ps in following Table-1-

3. Soon after the expiry of the redemption date Bibhu Prasad Acharya, husband of the complainant approached O.P.No.1 uncountable times to refund the total redemption value of Rs.76,650/- but all in vain. After the death of her husband, the complainant has issued Registered advocate notice dated 10.08.2021 vide postal receipt No. R0892915477IN & R0892915517IN dated 16.08.2021 to the O.Ps which was duly acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 on 17.08.2021. The O.P.No.1 replied dated 22.08.2021 to Annexure C stated that, “As per your given notice, XXX that both the accounts belong to Sahara India Real Estate Corporation ltd. whose payment are under the jurisdiction of SEBI(SECURITY EXCHANE BOARD OF INDIA) and the case is pending under the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. It is learned from reliable sources that, the said case is already disposed of in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India since August 2012. The O.P.No.1 did not mention that the control number assigned in Abode Bonds under Annexure B series of the present complainant is listed in the case pending before the SEBI and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also not mentioned the case number in details. Hence reply of the O.Ps is not sustainable in the eye of the law and by stating the above reasons the O.Ps cannot be escaped from the clutches of the law of the land. The present complainant should file the complaint within two years as per the Act, 2019 w.e.f. 20.11.2019. In accordance to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SMWP(C) No.:3 of 2020, the complainant has filed this complaint. Due to non refund of the matured amount by the Ops, the complainant is in constraint knock the doors of this respected commission. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the matured amount of Rs.76,650/- with 18% interests per annum, compensation of Rs.60,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- in the best interests of justice.
4. The delay in filling of the present consumer complaint is condoned in accordance to the order in SMWP(C) No.: 3 of 2020. Accordingly, notice was issued to the O.Ps but they neither appear nor filed any written version. Hence the O.Ps were declared exparte on 16.06.2023.
5. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- on dated 20.11.2009  and entitled to receive Rs.76,650/- on 20.11.2019  from the O.Ps.   Though notice was sent by this Ld. District CDR Commission, Ganjam Berhampur for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90. 
6. Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
7. On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.76,650.00 only along with 7% interest per annum  to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 16.08.2022 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realisation of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 06.07.2023.