SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

This is a complaint made by one Subhas Sinha against the Branch Manager and Directors of Alchemist Township India Limited, Haldia Branch, praying for a direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay the sum of Rs. 3,15,000/-along with interest @ 10% from the date of maturity till realization, compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In short, case of the Complainant is that father of the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 on 12.08.14 for three years MIS  being ID No. TYY0042154. The said deposit was scheduled to be matured on 12.08.2017. The OPs did not pay the monthly interest as usual. As such an amount of Rs. 47,500/- has become due. On the date of maturity, the Complainant demanded the maturity value from the Opposite Parties and filed all the relevant documents, but the Opposite Parties declined to return the amount. Hence, this case is filed by the complainant as he was a joint applicant in the above investment.

Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties.  OP No. 2 appeared but did not file WV. OP No. 1 did not appear at all. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP No.1.

Point to be considered in this case is whether or not the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by her.

Decision with reasons

        We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. From the copy of the receipts issued by the OP no.2  dated 02.09.14, signed by the Director, Krishna Kabir, it is seen that the OP no.1 has received the amount  as stated  in the petition of complaint from the complainant and the expiry date of the tenure was mentioned therein. The amount was received on the basis of an application of the complainant dated 12.08.2014. But the OPs did not return the amount or interest accrued therein.

        Three decisions reported in (1) 2015(2),CPR 481 (NC), (2) 2016(4),CPR 325 (NC) and (3) 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) have been referred in support of the case of the complainant. The first decision says non- payment of redemption amount even on receipt of the unit certificates is an act of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Company. Here the Opposite Parties did not controvert that the complainant paid  the amount as stated in the complaint petition.

        The second decision says that guarantor is liable for default committed by the guaranteed.

        The third decision speaks that depositor s shall have continuous cause of action to seek recovery of the amount of his fixed deposit.

        In this case it appears that sham paper transaction has been created in order to take deposit of money from the presumably illiterate persons.  Consumer Forum being a beneficial legislation, here president cannot overlook this type of transaction Forum cannot overlook that in this way some companies are taking money from the poor people and filling up their iron chest and it also appears that Hon’ble judge only quashed the CC 218 of 16 but the observation in a single case cannot be applicable in all such cases.

        Ld advocate for the complainant argued that he along with many persons have been cheated by the Co. They did not get any offer document from the Opposite Parties. except the receipt /certificate as above. They have invested money with the Co.  on the assurance  that they would get maximum value after the maturity period. But they have not received said amount.

        In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 (Supreme court) Hon’ble Justice of Madan B. Lakur observed in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view  of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage  vis a vis the supplier of service or goods. It is to overcome this advantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of CP Act 1986 was enacted by a Parliament.

        In view the aforesaid decisions and on the basis of the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint supported by affidavit, it is clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer under the C P Act 1986 and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

        Hon’ble National Commission of India held that technicalities will not be looked into very seriously while dealing with the consumer case.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/526 of 2017 be and the same is allowed  on contest against the OP no 2 and ex parte against the  OP No.1.

        Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/-along with interest @10% per annum from the date of maturity till final realization  and compensation of Rs. 3000/- and  litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which the  complainant will be at liberty to put the  decree into execution.

        Let the copies of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.