Date of filing : 23.11.2016

Date of judgment : 23.06.2017

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by (1) Sri Ramkrishna Halder, (2) Smt. Bandana Halder, (3) Smt. Megha Pran Krishna Halder, (4) Sri Partha Brahmachari alleging  deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties (1) Teachers’ Welfare Credit and Holding Limited, (2) Mr. Swapan Ghosh, Managing Director, Teachers’ Welfare Credit and Holding Limited.

            Case of the Complainants, in brief, is that the Complainants have opened three fixed deposit accounts being Nos. SK/26321/13/27 for Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Complainant Nos.1 & 3, SK/26320/13/27, for Rs.1,60,000/- in the name of Complainant Nos.1 & 4 for a period of 27 months i.e. on and from 8.12.2013 to 8.3.2016 and 3^rd one is F-21677/13/27 for Rs.2,40,000/- in the name of Complainants Nos.2 & 3 for a period of 27 months i.e. on and from 30.1.2013 to 30.4.2015. Accordingly, respective fixed deposit receipts being No.26321, 26320 & 21677/29281 were issued in favour of the Complainants. It is further stated by the Complainants though all the fixed deposits have been matured on 8.3.2016 and on 30.4.2015 respectively but the OP refunded no amount to the Complainants so far in spite of requests from the end of the Complainants on several occasions. It is further stated by the Complainants that they served a notice through their Ld. Advocate on 6.10.2016 with a request for making payment of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice but the said notice was returned with postal remark “not claimed”. According to the Complainants the OP by adopting unfair trade practice did not refund the said amount to the Complainants for which he is liable to compensate the Complainants to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of litigation. The Complainants by filing this petition of complaint has prayed for direction upon the OPs to make repayment of the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. the entire amount covered by the aforesaid fixed deposit accounts being nos.SK/26321/13/27, SK/26320/13/27 and F-21677/13/27 in favour of the Complainants, to pay compensation for causing harassment due to unnecessary delay for making repayment and also to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Notices were served. The OPs contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegation made out in the petition of complaint stating, inter alia, that the OP is a non-banking company and the Complainants are not consumer under the OPs. It is further stated in the written version that after the date of maturity of the fixed deposits the OP assured  the Complainants about payment of matured amount but owing to some financial problem the OPs did not make full payment to the Complainants. So, no question of negligence arises at all. Accordingly, the OPs have prayed for rejection of the petition of complaint in limini with cost.

            The Complainant adduced affidavit-in-chief. The Complainant annexed Photostat copies of the fixed deposit receipts and the Advocate’s letter dt.6.10.2016 along with other documents.

Points for determination

1. Are Complainants consumer under OP?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

3. Are the Complainants entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

             Point No.1 : The Complainants availed service rendered by the OPs. It is stated by the OPs that they are non-banking company but Sec.2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act defines service as “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement of the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

            Therefore, by hiring service on making payment of consideration the Complainants have become consumer under OP.

             Point No.1 answered accordingly.

             Point Nos.2 & 3  

             Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.

             Admittedly the OP received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Complainants under scheme of fixed deposit for an agreed period and thereafter on expiry of the said period the OP was supposed to return the said amount to the Complainants. It is also admitted that the three number of fixed deposits have been matured and the Complainants are entitled to get the amount. It is also admitted that the repayable amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has not  been repaid to the Complainants in due course of time. The Complainants have alleged about unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs and, on the other hand, the OPs have stated that due to financial constraint they have not disbursed the said amount so far.

              The OPs candidly admitted that they are in financial constraint. Howerver,  be that as it may, they are bound to repay the amount as per agreed terms as described within the fixed deposit certificate and deviation therefrom definitely amounts to deficiency in service for which the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant.

              The Opposite Parties are, therefore, liable to repay Rs.6,00,000/- to the Complainants toward encashment of fixed deposits. We hold the Opposite Parties are also liable to pay compensation to the Complainants which, as per our consideration is Rs.20,000/-. Since in action in respect of the payment of matured amount of three fixed deposits on the part of the Opposite Parties compelled the Complainant to file the instant case, the Opposite Parties are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

              Accordingly, the OPs are to refund Rs.6,00,000/- to the Complainant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

              Point Nos.2 & 3 are answered accordingly.

              In the result, the petition of complaint succeeds.

Hence,

ordered

               That CC/546/2016 is allowed on contest with cost.

               The OPs are directed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards matured amount of Fixed Deposit, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainants within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till realization thereof in full.