Judgment : Dt.14.7.2017

            This is a complaint made by (1) Smt. Sima Bhowmick, wife of Sarbamoy Bhowmick, (2) Sri Sarbamoy Bhowmick and (3) Sri Tirthankar Ghosh against – (a) Teacher’s Welfare Credit & Holding Ltd., 10/99, Bejoygarh, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092, OP No.1 and (b) Sri Swapan Kumar Ghosh, Director of Teacher’s Welfare Credit & Holding Ltd., residing at Sarbani, 107, Regent Estate, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092, praying for an order directing the OPs to pay to the Complainants all the amounts deposited in the accounts totaling Rs.3,22,065/-, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony, pain, harassment and financial loss and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant No.1 opened a monthly recurring deposit account with the OP for an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month and the said account was opened on 14.4.2014 for a tenure of one year maturing on 14.4.2015. Complainant No.1 paid the monthly installment of Rs.1,000/- commencing from 4.4.2014 to 13.3.2015 totaling Rs.12,000/- to the OP. Even after maturity OP failed and neglected to pay the maturity value of Rs.12,700/-. Complainant No.1 with her husband Sarbamoy Bhowmick also invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- for 66 months commencing from 16.10.2009 accruing a rate of interest @ 12.5%. Thereby, having a maturity value of Rs.1,00,000/-. OP did not pay that amount also. Complainant No.1 & 2 asked for payment of maturity value From the Director, Swapan Kumar Ghosh. But, OP failed to pay and neglected it. Complainant No.1 and Sri Tirthankar Ghosh also invested a sum of Rs.5,000/- for a period of 60 months, commencing from 29.3.2011 accruing a rate of interest @ 12.5%. Maturing  on 29.3.2016 having a maturity value of Rs.9,365/. This amount was not paid. Complainant 1 & 3 asked for payment of maturity value. But of no use. Complainant No.1 also invested with Sarbamoy Bhowmick another Rs.50,000/- for a period of 60 months. Complainant 1 & 2 asked for payment of maturity value. But, it was not paid. Complainant No.1 opened a monthly scheme for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, this amount was also, on maturity, not paid. So, Complainants filed this case.

            OPs did not appear and contest the case despite notice. So, the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition for treating the fats of the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the Xerox copies of the documents filed on behalf of Complainant, it appears that receipt No.13775 was to be matured on 10.8.2019 and this was taken by the Complainant on 10.8.2016. So, question of taking account of maturity value of this receipt does not arise. Further, it appears that the receipt No.18583 was to be matured on 12.6.2017. This complaint was filed on 24.3.2017 i.e. at a premature stage. Accordingly, this receipt cannot be also taken into account for giving relief to the Complainant. There is another receipt which matured on 29.3.2016 and maturity value was Rs.9,365/- and another one which was matured on 16.4.2015. So, at best, these two receipts can be considered. Further, it appears that OPs issued five cheques of Rs.20,000/- to Sima Bhowmick in 2015. The Xerox copies of which have been filed. There is no explanation as to whether Sima Bhowmick encashed those cheques or not. All the five cheques were amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.

            Moreover, in complaint petition, there is no clear explanation as to why Complainants, when did not receive Rs.12,700/- on maturity which matured in the month of March, 2015, purchased receipts in 2016. This makes it clear that Complainant did not file this complaint with clean hands and so he is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/175/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.