SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT.

            The short fact of the complaint  case is that being motivated  by the Opposite Parties no. 1 to 3 the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.10.2010 being receipt No. 001218 in Fixed Deposit  and  the said Ops issued receipt against the said deposit. The said fixed deposit  of Rs/- 50,000/- got matured on 08.10.2017 and the matured value is Rs. 3,00,000/-. On maturity the complainant repeatedly requested the Ops for payment of the amount but all in vain. The complainant alleged that the OP no. 1 to 4 are not in a mood to settle the claim. 

Hence, the instant case  has been filed by the complainant on the ground of deficiency of service with a prayer for direction upon the OPs to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-and other reliefs.

Summons were duly served upon the OPs ; the Op no. 4 filed written statement but other  Ops neither appeared nor contested the complaint.  The OP No. 4 contended  in its written version that the Bank in no way connected with the deposit certificate or claim of the petitioner. Hence, the claim against this OP no. 4 is liable to be dismissed. Ultimately the OP. no 4 also withheld itself from contesting the complaint.

 As such, the case is heard ex parte and also taken up for ex parte order.

On the basis of the pleadings as above, the points to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                         Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            Perused the affidavit in complaint and heard the ld advocate for the complainant.

            The complainant has filed a receipt being No. A 001218 issued by the OP Nos. 1- 3 Samiti and it is found to be duly signed by the OP no. 1 to 3  as the office bearers. The receipt also depicts that on 08.10.2010 a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-had been deposited by the policy holder/complainant Smt. Namita Adak at the rate of interest of 10.85 per cent per annum, due date of maturity was 08.04.2017 and the maturity amount is shown to be Rs. 3,00,000/-.

            So, it appears that all the contentions of the complaint tally with the particulars of the receipts filed by the complainant. The claim of the complainant  have remained unchallenged. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  

            In this regard we want to refer a decision reported in 2017(1) CPR 57 (West Bengal) wherein it has been held  that C.P Act 1986 –Section 17—“Financial services –non - payment of maturity amount—from his affidavit and other materials on record, case of the complainants is proved. Complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP with cost of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants—OP is directed to pay matured amount along with 18% interest. It is observed that non - payment without any reason cannot be sustained.”

Both the points are answered accordingly.          

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 499 of 2018 be and the same is decreed ex parte  against the OP no. 1 to 3 and dismissed ex parte against the OP no. 4.

The OP Nos. 1 to  3 are hereby directed jointly/severally  to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within one month from the date of this order, in default they will be liable to pay simple interest  @ 9 % per annum over the awarded amount till its full realization.  The said Ops are further directed to pay Rs. 2000/-as compensation and further Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost within the stipulated period as above.

The complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution in case of non-compliance by the OP nos. 1-3.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.