Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Complainant has filed an application for treating the complaint as examination-in-chief on affidavit. 

Heard. Prayer is allowed. The complaint be treated as evidence. 

Heard argument of the Ld Advocate of the complainant exparte. Judgement is ready, it is delivered in open Commission in 3 pages and 2 separate sheet of paper. 

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is a permanent resident of above noted address and a poor bonafide consumer of service under the Ops. The Complainant invested Rs. 26,0000.00 for purchasing four bonds of the abovecold storage. The Bonds (Potato) no. are 626,627,682,683 for 400 Hundred packets dated 03.03.2016, 03.03.2016, 04.04.2016 and 04.04.2016 respectively. Sri Sanat Pal Partner of Chandrakona Co-operative Cold Storage Society Ltd. promised to pay the said Bonds amount in the stipulated times i.e. immediate after the sale proceed are received. After sale, the OP namely Sri Sanat Pal failed to pay the money in spite of repeated request made by the claimant. The Complainant now demanded Rs. 260000.00 plus 100000.00 for destroying mental agony as well as treating financial difficulties in the life of the complainant. As there is no source of income of the complainant to maintain his life hood. The cause of action has been arising on and from 06.08.19 and this case has been filed within time. Therefore, the Complainant is hereby preferring the case before Consumer Forum with prays for following relief. Therefore, the complainant prays for directing the Opposite parties to return the actual amount Rs. 260000.00 + 100000.00 total Rs. 360000.00 plus interest up to date from the date of sale proceed to the complainant.

Notices were duly served upon the ops. However, these ops have preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?  

2.  Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transactions made by him with the O.Ps in the matter of purchase of bonds. The ops acts have made it a continuous cause of action by not settling the matter before the office of the SDLSA. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

Having regards had to the complaint on affidavit and the copy of bonds produced by the complainant we find that the particulars of the complaint on affidavit  fully corroborate with the particulars of the bonds. None of the OPs has turned up to controvert the statement of the complaint on oath. So the complainant has been successful in proving his case.

Two decisions reported in 2016(4), CPR 325 (NC) and (2), 2016(4), CPR 723 (NC) have been referred in support of the case of the complainant. It appears that in 2016(4), CPR 325 (NC) it has been decided that non- payment of redemption/maturity amount even on receipt of the unit certificates is an act of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Company. Here the Opposite Parties did not controvert that the complainant paid the amount as asserted by the complainant.

 In 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) it has been decided that the depositor shall have continuous cause of action to seek recovery of the amount of his fixed deposit.

        In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in the matter dispute concerning a consumer that it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage visa vise the supplier of service or goods.

        In view of the aforesaid decisions and on the basis of the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint supported by affidavit, it is clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019(An Act to promote, protect and enforce the rights of the consumers) and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

         Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/636 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

        The Opposite Parties, who are jointly and severally liable, are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of issuance of bonds till full realization of the awarded amount in the nature of compensation with further Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order ; failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

 Let copy of the judgment be supplied to  the complainant free of cost.