Date of filing : 19.03.2019                                                     

Date of Judgment: 24.11.2021

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

This consumer complaint is filed by the complainants namely Jayanta Hore and Sucharita Hore , under Section 12 of the C.P Act , 1986 against the opposite party  ( referred to as O.P hereinafter) namely Teacher’s Welfare Credit & Holding Limited, alleging deficiency in service on its part.

The case of the complainants, in short, is that complainants deposited jointly a sum of Rs.50,000/-  in MIS Account with interest @12.5% p.a on 17.9.2021 with the O.P which is a non-banking company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and being represented by its Managing Director namely Swapan Kumar Ghosh. The amount on its maturity was Rs.1,00,000/- and maturity date was 17.3.2018.  Complainants further deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lac in MIS account with interest @12% p.a on 20.12.2012 and also a sum of Rs.40,000/- in an MIS Account for 66 months with interest @12% p.a on 16.2.2013. Complainant also deposited further amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-  for a period of 36 months with interest @9% p.a on 15.5.2015 and its maturity date was on 15.5.2018 . The amount payable on maturity was Rs. 3,00,000/- . The four MIS deposit Accounts being no.SK/24936/13/66, SK/28173/14/66, SK/30186/14/66 and HNS/33829/15/36 respectively . O.P is a non-banking company registered under the Company’s Act. On maturity of the said fixed deposits when the complainants  visited the office of the O.P and asked for maturity amount, they were assured by the Director namely Swapan Kumar Ghosh that they would get payment very soon. .  But no payment was made by the O.P inspite of the repeated visits by the complainants. So, the complaint has been filed by the complainants praying for directing the O.P to pay the total sum of Rs.6,80,000/- along with interest @9% p.a , to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainants have filed four receipts issued by the O.P.

The O.P has contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations.  However, it is specifically contended that the O.P offered to the complainant to make payment by instalments. But the complainants did not agree with the proposal. The O.P is ready and willing to refund the invested amount but unable to pay the same as the bank account of the O.P has been seized by the Directorate of Economic Offence.

So, the only point requires determination whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed.

Decision with reasons

            In support of their claim as referred to above that the complainants have filed receipts being no.24936 in respect of the account no. SK/24936/13/66,  Receipt no.28173  in respect of Account no.SK/28173/14/66, Receipt no.30186 in respect of Account no. SK/30186/14/66 and Receipt no. 33829 in respect Account no. HNS/33829/15/36 issued by the O.P company represented by its Director named therein. The receipts were issued in the name of complainants on deposit of an amount of Rs.50,000/-  for 66 months with interest @12.5% p.a . The said deposit was made on 17.9.2012 and it was to be refunded on 17.3.2018. Complainants have also filed the documents relating to the A/C no. SK/28173/14/66 being Receipt no. 28173 showing deposit of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-  for 66 months with interest 12.5% p.a on 20.12.2012 which was to be matured on 20.06.2018, receipt no. 30186  being A/C no. SK/30186/14/66 deposit of amount of Rs. 40,000/-  for 66 months with interest @12.5% p.a on 16.02.2013 date of maturity was 16.08.2018 and the receipt no. 33829 in respect of A/C no. HNS/33829/15/36 in respect of deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- for 36 months with interest @9% p.a on 15.5.2015 which was to be matured on 15.5.2018 . On a careful scrutiny of the receipt no. 33829 in respect of deposit of sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- there appears an endorsement as “MIS Part Payment on 19.7.2016 of Rs.3000/-“but neither complainants nor the O.P has explained about it. On the contrary, it is apparent from the written version filed by the O.P that the deposit of the amounts  by the complainants with the O.P and issuance of the certificate by the O.P have not been denied and disputed. It is specifically stated in the written version that they never denied to make the payment and had offered to the complainants to make the payment by instalments. But the complainants did not agree and the O.P is always ready and willing to refund the invested amount to the complainants. If that be so, then since admittedly the said amounts deposited by the complainant Jayanta Hore and Sucharita Hore have not been paid , the complainants are entitled to refund of the maturity amount as mentioned in the receipt issued by the O.P. So, complainants are entitled to the matured amounts of Rs.1 lac , Rs.2 Lac, Rs.80,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @12.5% p.a respectively . However, since interest is allowed, we find no justification to pass an order of compensation as prayed for.

Hence,

                  ORDERED

that  CC/184/2019  be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to pay total sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- to the complainants with interest @12.5%  from the date of maturity to till this date within 2 months from this date.

 The O.P is further directed to pay Rs.8000/- as litigation cost within the aforesaid period of 2 months. In default of payment the entire sum shall carry interest @12.5% p.a till realisation.

Complainant shall hand over the original receipts/certificates to the O.P on payment of the sum.