Complainant is present. He has filed an application for treating the complaint as examination in chief. Heard and considered. Prayer is allowed. Complaint be treated as evidence. Heard argument in full. Put up the record at the second half of this day for delivery of judgement. 

later

SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Facts of the complaint case in short is that being allured and influenced by the attractive interest of the Ops Co. the complainants invested a sum of Rs. 77,250/- with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time  being Certificate No. TB00545026 and Customer ID No. TMM0258732 on 03.10.2016 which was returnable on 03.04.2019. Complainant further invested a sum of Rs. 51,500/- with the OP No.2 through the Op No.1 for one time being Certificate No. TB00041387 and Customer ID No. TMM0176039 on 09.03.2016 which was returnable on 09.09.2018. After maturity the complainants submitted all the necessary documents and claimed the maturity amount of Rs. 1,28,750/- but the OPs did not pay the same.

          Hence, the complainants have filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,28,750/- as maturity amount  with interest till full realization of the said amount and other reliefs.

 Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. Despite service of summons the OPs did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the OPs.

Points for determination are:

 1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                                                2.    Are the Complainants entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainants  and the copy of money receipt/certificate produced by the complainants  and find that the particulars of the complaint fully corroborate with the particulars of the certificate. None of the OPs has turned up to controvert the statement of the complaint on oath. So the complainant has been successful in proving his case.

Two decisions reported in 2016(4), CPR 325 (NC) and (2), 2016(4), CPR 723 (NC) have been referred in support of the case of the complainant. It appears that in 2016(4), CPR 325 (NC) it has been decided that non- payment of redemption/maturity 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 asserted by the complainant.  In 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) it has been decided that the depositor 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 person.  Consumer law being a beneficial legislation, the Commission cannot overlook that in this way some companies are taking money from the poor people and filling up their iron chest.

          Ld. Advocate for the complainants argued that the complainant along with many persons have been cheated by the op Co. They did not get any offer document from the Opposite Parties except the 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in the matter dispute concerning a consumer that 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 visa vise the supplier of service or goods.

          In view of 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 Consumer Protection Act 2019(An Act to promote, protect and enforce the rights of the consumers) and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

         Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainants.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/661 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

          The Opposite Parties, who are jointly and severally liable, are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,28,750/- to the complainants within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till full realization of the awarded amount with further Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost, failing which the complainants will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

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