DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.04.2021.
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:
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 Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant being persuaded by the O.P. deposited Rs.19,500/- with the O.P. with the assurance of receiving the maturity value of Rs.58,500/-. The date of deposit of Rs.19,500/- being on 31.01.2012 and the date of maturity was 30.04.2015. Accordingly, the O.P. issued on bond stating Bond holder No. 512266840623 and Certificate No. 01-31-111 with option DAZZLE. The complainant deposited Rs.19,500/- against three Bonds @ Rs.9928/- being the face value of each Bond. The complainant is likely to receive the maturity value of Rs.58,500/- after 30.04.2015. The complainant approached the O.P. claiming the maturity value but there was no response and in otherwise was assured for payment of the same. Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued one notice on dated 03.05.2015 by registered post. Simultaneously, the complainant sent one message through mail on the same day i.e. 03.05.2015. Even after persuasions, the O.P. kept silent and did not paid the maturity value of the Bond amounting to Rs.58,500/- till date. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay the maturity amount of Rs.58,500/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued to the O.P. The O.P. neither appeared nor filed any written version, hence the O.P. was declared exparte on 06.04.2021.
4. 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. In the instant case it reveals that neither the complainant has filed any documentary evidence i.e. deposit receipt nor any fixed deposit receipt of money etc. in support of her claim. But taking the sole testimony of the complainant as well as affidavit in to consideration, we accepted the contentions of the complainant as true. 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 view of the above decision and the provisions of law, the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.P. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.58,500/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred ) only to the complainant along with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing this case i.e. on 24.10.2017 within 60 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- for compensation alongwith Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 6th April 2021under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the concerned parties free of cost and a copy of same is to be sent to the server of
