DATE OF DISPOSAL: 08.12.2021

Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:

               The factual matrix of the case is that 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 while he staying at Biranchipur, near Buguda was persuaded by one of the Agent of the Opposite Parties to purchase Sahara Unique to have better profits by depositing money so that the deposited amounts shall be doubled. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- only with O.P.No.1 as per details stated hereunder:

On 14.03.2009 the complainant availed advance of Rs.7500/- each which was deposited with the O.P.No.1 in time having no balance on advance payments. After completion of the period, the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 at his office for reimbursement of the money back. As per details of credit value adjustment, complainant is entitled to receive Rs.15,530/- in deposit of Rs.5000/- after 120 months and hence liable to receive Rs.66,590/- on deposit of Rs.15,000/- after 120 months. The complainant is hence entitled to receive the money as per details herein stated below:

The complainant is approaching to the office of the O.P. for reimbursement of the money from the date it becomes due and last such approach was 18.09.2019 when it was informed after receipt of the same from the office of the O.P.No.2 it shall be paid but there is no response thereafter.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.2,32,950/- towards the entitlement of the complainant, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the harassments and mental agony, Rs.12,000/- towards cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.

               3. Notice was issued to the O.Ps. The O.Ps appeared through his advocate but not filed any written version, hence the O.Ps were declared exparte on 22.03.2021.

               4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the advocate for complainant is present. We heard argument from him for the complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.75,000/- on dated 10.09.2007  and entitled to receive Rs.2,32,950/- after 120 months from the O.Ps.   Though notice was sent by this Ld. District CDR Forum/Commission, Ganjam Berhampur for appearance and filing written version by the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further 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 held that “Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90.  

               Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.   

               On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law the complainant’s case is partly allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.2,32,950/-only   to the complainant within 60 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed  to pay Rs.3000/- for compensation alongwith Rs.1000/- as costs 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 8^th December 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the concerned parties free of cost and a copy of same is to be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.