DATE OF FILING                    :     30-07-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      14-10-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER       :      22-06-2015.  

Madan Murati Koley,  

son of late Tinkari Koley,  

residing at village Someswar, P.o. Santoshnagar, P.S. Amta,

District Howrah. ……………………………………………………….  COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         SMG Agricultural Products India Limited,

  having its registered office at 2/16, Vidyasagar Colony, Jadavpur,

   Kolkata 700086.

   

  2.         Branch office,

  Mallick Enterprise, Amta Bandar, P.O. Amta,

  District Howrah,

  PIN 711401.

   

  3.         Sri Uday Kumar Samui,

  Managing Director,

  son of  Tushar Kanti Samui,

  residing at village & P.O. Harishpur, P.S. Udaynarayanpur,

  District Howrah,

  PIN 711410

   

  4.         Sri Sushil Kheto, Director,

  son of Madan Mohal Kheto,   

  residing at village & P.O. Singti, Uttarpashimpara,

  P.S. Udaynaraynpur, District Howrah,

  PIN 711226.

   

  5.         Shri Anil Kheto,

  son of Sri Madan Mohan Kheto,

  residing at village Sameswar, P.O. Santoshnagar, P.S. Amta,

  District Howrah,

  PIN 711401. ……………………………………….…………OPOSITE PARTIES.

   

   

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

   

               Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                                 Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

               Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).       

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

   

• 1. Complainant, namely Madan Murati Koley,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.ps. to refund Rs. 4,68,800/-, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant made investments in the scheme of monthly interest scheme, Fixed deposits of o.ps. The o.ps.issued certificates vide Annexures P/1 to P/3 in favour of the complainant which areas follows :

        Madan Murati Koley  -  Fixed Deposit Certificate No. 1090, 4597,

                                               Monthly Income Scheme No.  7526.

3. O.Ps.promised to pay the monthly interest on the due dates to the complainant and upto April, 2013 they paid the same regularly. Complainant  repeatedly went to the office of o.ps. since May, 2013  but on different  pleas they have returned the complainant  without giving his  monthly interest amount as well as the maturity amount of the fixed deposit. It is further stated by the complainant that due to this non action and gross negligence on the part of the o.p., complainant has  been compelled to face tremendous problem due to scarcity of money with which he  was  supposed to meet  his  day to day expenditure, medical expenditure etc.  which are really at stake as he is a retired person. So, finding no other alternative, complainant  filed this instant  petition praying for the aforesaid relief. 

4. Notice was served. O.p. neither appeared nor filed any written version.

Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.

5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainant and noted its contents. Complainant invested in the o.ps. company. It is a fact that o.ps. have failed to pay the monthly interest since May, 2013 for which complainant felt tremendous monetary problem. Because, people invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep his promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour of complainant. For their gross negligence in discharging duties, complainant had to suffer a lot for the crying need of money. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, complainant made those investments foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.ps.’severe negligence, complainant is, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. Moreover, the o.ps. have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice  on their  part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.   And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant  should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 416  of 2014 ( HDF  416  of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.Ps.     

      That the  O.Ps.  are jointly and  severally   directed   to pay the principal amount or the maturity amount, whichever is applicable,  along with upto date monthly due interest  in terms of the certificates in question  within one month from this order  i.d., @ 9% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amount till actual payment.

      No order as to compensation.

      The complainant do get an award of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost and o.ps.  are directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment

      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.