SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

This is a complaint made by one Maya Rani Jana against the Branch Manager and Directors of GREENAGE FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay the maturity value of Recurring Deposit of Rs.50000/- along with interest @ 10% from 14.12.2015 till realization, compensation for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

In short, case of the Complainant is that, she invested a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as recurring deposit on and from 15.12.2012 with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 for three years being Policy No. 0066629. The date of maturity of the said recurring deposit was on 14.12.2015 and the maturity value was Rs.50000/-. On maturity, the Complainant demanded the maturity value from the OP and filed all the relevant documents, but the OP No.2 declined to return the amount hence, this case.

OP No. 2 contested the case by filing WV, the OP No. 1 in spite of receiving summons refused the same so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No. 1, whereby OP No. 2 denied all the material allegations of the complaint and stated that the case is filed with a malafide intention for some illegal gain. Thus, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

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. The only defense of the OP No. 2 is that the case does not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 2 argued that the OP no.2 has gone under liquidation but that plea has not been taken by OP No.2 in their W/V. We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. The only defense of the OP No. 2 is that the case does not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Ld. Lawyer for the OP no. 2 argued that the OP Co. has gone under liquidation but could not furnish any cogent document to substantiate his argument. The OP No.2 filed a Xerox copy of a letter of Deputy Official Liquidator of Hon’ble Court addressing to Dipaknar Basu and Rajib Pal. From this letter nothing can be understood and this document is not acceptable also. Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.2 submits that as there is an order of liquidation of the Company, Consumer case is not maintainable. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant relied on a decision reported in (2016) CPJ 304 (NC) in Tribal Service Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Manoj Kumar Dansena & Ors. wherein it has  been held “since banking activities of Bank have stopped, Collector and Official Liquidator of Bank are liable for the assets of the said Bank – State Commission rightly held that petitioner and respondent No.6-Collector jointly and severally responsible for payment of amount” which in our view is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Besides that, the W/V filed by the OP no.2 is verified against the affidavit of the complainant. Even if for arguments’ sake, we consider the argument of ld. Lawyer of OP No.2, then also the submission of the ld. Lawyer of OP No.2 has no merit as because what has been filed by the OP No. 2 as order of liquidation does not affect the complaint. It is not a binding on the complainant. After going through the W/V of the OP No. 2 it appears that the OP more or less admitted their fault. But nothing has been proved by cogent evidence by the OP. Hence, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the investment.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/7/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 2 and ex parte against the OP No. 1. OPs are directed to pay maturity value of Recurring Deposit of Rs.50000/- to the complainant within three months from the date of this order, in default, OPs will have to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till final payment. OPs are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within three months from the date of this order, failing which OPs will be liable to pay Rs.100/- daily as punitive charges which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

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