DATE OF FILING: 12.03.2019.

            DATE OF DISPOSAL: 08.05.2023

Smt. Saritri Pattanaik, Member (W)

1. 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 Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her  grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a woman and house wife to save something for her family from her pocket for future, deposited the amount as per motivation of the O.Ps to get lucrative returns of such deposits in future through their agent under F2 Sahara. A.  Select on different dates and the O.P.No.2 office duly acknowledging the amount on behest of O.P.No.1 issued the account number along with certificate to the complainant wherein Sri K.Kesava Rao is nominee as follows:

3. When the complainant demanded to refund the matured amount on said fixed deposit on 28.02.2018 and 15.03.2018 the O.P.No.2 asked the complainant to come after 30 days in both the dates and when the complainant approached on lapse of said period of 30 days, the O.P.No.2 denied to give the said matured amount. Thereafter, till date the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 for refund of the matured amount with delayed interests in regular interval in person and some time through her friends and relatives but O.P.No.2 paid deaf ear which is to deficiencies in services and unfair trade practices and assurances given by both the O.Ps are misleading. Law is well settled that, when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their funds with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purpose of its business. Such transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and the depositor is clearly a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant issued an advocate notice dated 21.10.2018 through Registered Post with AD dated 27.11.2018 to both the O.Ps. The O.P.No.2 duly acknowledged the said registered notice of advocate date not mentioned with signature of O.P.No.2 but did not choose to reply to the complainant the reasons bests known to O.P.No.2. Similarly, the registered notice to O.P. No.1 also neither returned the AD card nor the registered notice till date to the advocate of the complainant.  Due to non refund of the matured amount by the Ops till date, the complainant is in constraint to knock the doors of this respected commission. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the matured amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with 24% interests per annum, compensation of Rs.7,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.30,000/- in the best interests of justice.
4. Notice was issued to the O.Ps. The O.Ps appeared through his advocate but not filed any written version, hence the O.Ps were declared exparte on 08.05.2023.
5. 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. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.3,01,000/- on dated 31.08.2016 and entitled to receive Rs.3,50,063/- on 15.03.2018  from the O.Ps.   Though notice was sent by this Ld. District CDR Commission, Ganjam Berhampur for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further 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 another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90. 
6. Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.
7. On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.3,50,063/-only along with 4% interest per annum  to the complainant within 45 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 12.03.2019 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realisation of all dues. This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 08.05.2023