Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellants/OPs challenging the Judgment and Order dated 18-11-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in Complaint Case No. 301/2015 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the Appellants/OPs. 

The Appellants/OPs were directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also interest over the same @ 10% p.a. with effect from 10-12-2014 till its full payment.

The Appellants/OPs were further directed to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a compensation for an amount of Rs.  25,000/- for harassing and deceiving the Respondent/Complainant and for adopting as well unfair trade practice against him. 

The Appellants/OPs were jointly and severally directed to pay the entire decreetal amount within one month from the date of impugned order, failing which, as directed, the Appellants/OPs should pay a penal damage of Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and the said amount, on collection, was ordered to be deposited with the District Forum.

In case of further reluctance to comply with the impugned order, the direction was specific towards invoking prosecution u/s 25, read with Section 27, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which might warrant further penalty and fine to be imposed upon the Appellants/OPs.

The Appeal No. 1336/2015 arising out of the C.C. No. 302/2015 from the same District Forum in an exactly identical issue of same nature and character was given an analogues hearing.  

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased one certificate bearing MC Code No. 054517776 from the Appellants/OPs depositing with them an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  The certificate which was scheduled to be matured on 10-12-2014 was deposited on 04-12-2014 with the Appellants/OPs against the due acknowledgement issued by the Appellants/OPs towards the aforesaid deposit.

The Respondent/Complainant, thereafter, requested the Appellants/OPs on number of occasions to release the amount without any effective result as on date.  Even the Demand Notice issued by the Respondent/Complainant against the Appellants/OPs did not yield him any positive result. 

The Respondent/Complainant was deprived this way of his due payment by the Appellants/OPs’ denial and was subjected to serious physical harassment and mental agony leaving for him no other alternative but to resort to the legal recourse which, ultimately, led to the filing of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.  The impugned Judgment and Order disposed of the said complaint case.

The proxy counsel on behalf of the Appellants/OPs filed BNA with copy to the other side.  The Appellants/OPs were not heard in absence of due representation on their behalf. 

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant who, in his very brief submission, repeated the facts as narrated above and focused on how his client became a victim of the deceptive practices on the part of the Appellants/OPs and how his client was put to severe harassment and mental agony through unlawful trade practiced upon him by the Appellants/OPs and prayed, as well, for the Appeal to be dismissed with cost.

Perused the papers on record, considered submission of the Respondent/Complainant and the BNA submitted on behalf of the Appellants/OPs. 

It appeared that the Appellants/OPs had avoided to present themselves before the Bench in appreciation of the facts that their activities were devoid of any merit to have legal protection.

We also appreciate that it would be superfluous to elaborate in so many words that the alleged denial of making payment against the subject certificate on maturity cannot be neutralized by resorting to any plea or excuse.

We find no wrong in the assessment of the case by the lower Forum and accordingly feel that the impugned Judgment and Order does not deserve any intervention from this end.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Appeal fails.  The impugned Judgment and Order stands affirmed.  This order shall govern both the Appeals bearing nos. A/1335/2015 and A/1336/2015 and both the Appeals stand dismissed accordingly.