SMT. ANGSUMATI NANDA, MEMBER,

In short, case of the Complainant is that they invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-  at a time  for some monthly return to the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1  being certificate No. TA01590172 oin 25.05.2015 which was returnable in 25.02.18. The OPs did not return the quarterly interest of Rs. 20,008/- from Februry 2016 to Dec. 2017. The said deposit was to be matured oin 25.02.18.  On the date of maturity the complainants demanded the maturity amount by deposing all the required documents, but the OPs did not pay any singe farthing. Hence, the instant case with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to returnRs. 200000/- with 10%interest from the 25.02.2015 and Rs. 20,008/- for the months of February, 2016 to December 2017 and other reliefs.

The OPs never offered any plot or villa during the said period of investment.

Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. The OP no. 2 appeared and took part in the argument, but OP No. 1 did not  appear to contest the case. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP No.1.

Points need to be considered are whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether the  Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him.

Decision with reasons

Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision for sake of convenience.        

          We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. From the copy of the certificate of property dated 18.03.15, issued by C S Jolly, the Director of the OP company, it is found that the OPs received the amount as mentioned in the certificate and also referred by the complainant in the complaint. The date of maturity clearly tally with that of the complaint petition. It is the case of the complainant that the OPs did not pay the maturity value as agreed between him and the Co. and also did not offer any plot or villa under their housing project as per agreement, which is not controverted by either of the OPs in this 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. The first decision says 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.       

          The second decision speaks that 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 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.

          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 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 visa vise the supplier of service or goods. It is to overcome this advantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of C 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/04 of 2018 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.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @10% per annum from the  date of maturity till final realization and compensation of Rs. 2000/- 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 this order into execution.  Let the copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.