Smt. Bandana Roy, President

This is a complaint made by one Smt. Sumitra Samanta  against the Branch Manager and Managing Director of GREENAGE FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay the maturity value of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 10% from 30.01.2016 till realization and 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.1,000/-  as Recurring deposit per month from 31.01.2013 with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 for three years being Certificate No 00109442. The date of maturity was 30.01.2016 and maturity value was Rs. 50,000/-. On 30.01.2016 the Complainant demanded the maturity value from the OPs but the OPs 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. The OP No. 2 stated that the instant complaint does not come under the ambit of the Forum. It is further stated that the Complainant claimed the maturity proceeds without furnishing relevant documents for this purpose. 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. Besides that, the W/V filed by the OP no.2 is verified against the affidavit of the complainant. It appears that 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.

This complaint case, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/238/2016 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 Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within two 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.1000/- and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two 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.