DATE OF DISPOSAL: 03.03.2020.
Sri Karunakar Nayak,President:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a self-employed and to save something for his family on motivation of both of the Opposite Parties through their agent has fix deposited an amounting of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.46,000/- on 13.08.2016 and 15.09.2016 respectively under 18 months scheme and the O.Ps has issued two certificate bearing No. 925 00373 6896/ Account No.11396202840 and Certificate No: 925 00373/Account No: 11396203320 and fixed the matured date to 13.02.2018 and 15.03.2018 and the O.Ps declared the matured amount of Rs.1,04,670/- and Rs.53,498/- for said two deposits. As per terms and conditions of the above scheme, both of the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the maturity amount on the date fixed i.e. 13.02.2018 and 15.03.2018. On the matured date 13.02.2018 and 15.03.2018 which was declared by both the Opposite Parties on the Account Certificates issued by both the O.Ps, when the complainant demanded to O.P.No.2, the O.P.No.2 asked the complainant to come after 30 days of said respective dates and when the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 on lapse of said period the O.P.No.2 denied to give the said matured amount. Thereafter, the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 for refund of the matured amount with interest in regal interval but O.P.No.2 paid deaf ear which is tantamount to deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices and assurances given by both the O.Ps are misleading. To get back the said matured amount, the complainant has visited in person and sometime with his friends several times to O.P.No.2 office but no avail. The complainant issued advocate notice dated 07.12.2018 and 29.12.2018 to both the O.Ps. The O.Ps received the said registered notice but did not choose to reply to the complainant the reasons best known to them. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the matured amount of Rs.1,58,168/- with 24% per annum, compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,816/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued to the Opposite parties. But the O.Ps did not appear and file their written version on the date fixed as such they are set exparte on 19.06.2019.
4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case record and also perused the materials on the case record. We have also thoughtfully considered the submission made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. It reveals from the materials on the record that the complainant had two fix deposits of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.46,000/- dated 13.08.2016 and 15.09.2016 respectively under ‘18’ months scheme of the O.Ps. It also reveals that the O.Ps had issued certificates bearing No.925003736896, maturity amount of Rs.1,04,670/- maturity date 13.02.2018 against the fixed deposit of Rs.90,000/- and certificate bearing No.925003737223 maturity amount of Rs.53,498/- , maturity date 15.03.2018 against the fixed deposit of Rs.46,000/- in favour of the complainant. But after the maturity date of the fixed deposits the O.Ps did not release the maturity amount of the complainant’s fixed deposits. As such the complainant sent pleader notice through his advocate for getting the maturity amount of Rs. 53,498/- vide Certificate No. 925003737223 and Rs.1,04,670/- vide Certificate No.925003736896 but the O.Ps did not respond.
5. On foregoing discussion and taking the materials on record into consideration it is clear evident that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has hold that “Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. Hence in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to pay the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposits bearing No.925003737223 and 925003736896 along with 08% interest per annum from the date of filing this case i.e. on 04.02.2019 to the complainant within 60 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for compensation along with Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 3rd March 2020 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
