Date : 14/09/2021

     Case of the complainant is that the complainant MD. Jasim invested Rs.14,000/- with the fixed deposit scheme of OP-Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. on 30/12/2016 for the period of 12 months.

     It is stated in the petition of complaint that after expiry of maturity date on 30/12/2017 the complainant went to the office of the OP and submitted his claim on 15/01/2018. It is further stated that the complainant again visited the office of the OP on 25/02/2018 and met the Manager who advised him to re-invest the maturity amount for 5 years and the complainant was willing to re-invest his money but after expiry of a considerable spell of time the complainant found that the OP neither issued the re-investment certificate in favour of him nor they refund the maturity amount to the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant send the Advocate’s letter to the OP on 15/07/2018 but OP did not turn up, hence the complainant filing this case praying for the direction to the OP to refund the maturity amount of Rs.15,260/- along with compensation and litigation cost.

     Notices were duly served upon the OP No.1appeared but thereafter OP No.1 preferred to remain absent.

     Hence, the case is proceeded ex parte against the Ops.

                                         Decision with reasons

     The complainant MD. Jasim filed original certificate from where it appears that the complainant invested Rs.14,000/- with the Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. on 30/12/2016 for the period of 12 months and the same was matured on 30/12/2017. It is stated in the petition of complaint that after maturity the complainant claimed the maturity amount of Rs.15,260/- by submitting claim from. It is therefore, evident that Ops have deviated from the promise of disbursement of the maturity amount. However, Section 2(II) of Consumer Protection Act,2019 runs as follows;

“deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in-force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service” it is very much clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. We hold that from unchallenged evidence adduced by the complainant it is evident that the said amount is also payable on the date of maturity of the deposited amount of Rs.15,260/-. Since the said amount is lying with the Ops, the complainant, as per our assessment is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- for compensation and further since the inaction on the part of the Ops has compelled the complainant to file the instant case the Ops are liable to pay the litigation cost which as per our assessment is Rs.2,000/-.

In the result the consumer complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is,

                                         O r d e r e d

that consumer complaint case being no.398/2019 is allowed ex parte with cost.

The Ops are directed to refund jointly and severally the deposited amount of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Only) along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of this order with the Ops failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @5%  per annum  for the default period.