SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

Gist of the complaint case is that being allured by the attractive interest the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 200000/- vide Allotment No. AIRL/RXX0134771 on 16.03.2013 at the Branch Office  of the OP Co. at Tamluk for a period of three years on an undivided share scheme which is also MIS scheme. The date of expiry of the scheme was 16.03.2016. The Ops did not pay interest for 15 months equal to Rs. 30,000/-. The scheme matured but the OPs did not pay the maturity amount or interest. The complainant demanded the said amount to the OP different times but in vain.

Hence, the complainant  has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- with 10% interest from the date of maturity till full satisfaction thereof  and other reliefs. 

Summons were issued upon all the Opposite Parties. The OP No. 1 appeared and filed written version but OPs no 2 and 3  did  turn up to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the OPs. No 2 and 3.

The OP no. 1 denied all the material allegations labeled against him.  This OP denied that he was an agent of the OP no. 3 Co.  he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                                                           

Points need to be considered are whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him.

Decision with reason

Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision for sake of convenience .

Seen the examination in-chief filed by the complainant, the questionnaires of the OP no. 1 and the reply thereto filed by the complainant. Also seen the complaint and the written version and the documents filed by the parties. On perusal of the materials on record we find nothing to establish that the OP no. 1 is an agent of the Co. as the complainant failed to produce any document to satisfy this Forum to that effect.

So, the case against the OP no 1 deserves dismissal.

Seen the certificate of property dated 06.04.2013, produced by the complainants, issued by the Director of the OP no. 3 B M Mahajan  wherefrom it appears that the OP No. 3 received an amount of Rs. 2,000,00/- from the complainant with promise to offer undivided share in land measuring an area of 1762.,20 in District Sivpuri, MP and the tenure was till 16.03.2016.

          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. The first decision says 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.       

          The second decision speaks that depositor shall have continuous cause of action to seek recovery of the amount of his fixed deposit.

          In this case it appears that sham paper transaction has been created in order to take deposit of money from the presumably illiterate persons.  Consumer Forum being a beneficial legislation, here president cannot overlook this type of transaction Forum cannot overlook that in this way some companies are taking money from the poor people and filling up their iron chest.

          Ld advocate for the complainant argued that he along with many persons have been cheated by the Co. They did not get any offer document from the Opposite Parties except the certificate as above. They have invested money with the Co. on the assurance that they would get maximum value after the maturity period. But they have not received said amount.

          In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 (Supreme court) Hon’ble Justice of Madan B. Lakur observed in a dispute concerning a consumer, 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 vis a vise the supplier of service or goods. It is to overcome this advantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of CP Act 1986 was enacted by a Parliament.

          In view 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 C P Act 1986 and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 1986.    

         Hon’ble National Commission of India held that technicalities will not be looked into very seriously while dealing with the consumer case.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/106 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed against the OP no 1 on contest and allowed ex parte against the OPs no 2 and 3 without any order as to costs.  

          Both the Opposite Parties No 2 and 3 are directed to return Rs. 2,30,000/-to the complainant  with 10 % interest from the date of maturity till full satisfaction thereof, within  one month from this order, failing which the complainants will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

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