Orissa

Rayagada

CC/40/2017

Nidrabati Majhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Saemrudha JEEVAN Foods India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B.P. Patra

25 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.40 / 2017.                                               Date.     25   .     10  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Nidabati Majhi, W/O: Sukula Majhi, Vill: Milikapanga, Po:Tembaguda,Dist:Rayagada,  765 025  (Odisha)                      …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Bramch   Manager, Samrudha Jeevan  Feeds  India  Ltd., Near unarighai Chhak, Petrol pump front, At/Po: Padmapur, Dist:Rayagada.

2. Regd. Office, Sl. No. D/1, 13/5, Sambhaji Nagar,  Dhankawadi, Pune- 411 043.

3.Head  office, Lank mark, F.P. 576/2B, 3^rd. floor, Oppo Faregussan college, Sivaji Nagar, Pune- 411005.                                                                        .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Biraja Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of  maturity amount  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  18 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                                Findings.

From the  documents filed by the complainant it reveals that the complainants had deposited  amount  in the above organization.  In support of  deposit of money in different  dates the Complainant has   filed  copies of  deposited  receipts for the period from 28.10.2010 to  27.10.2015  @ Rs. 100.00 per month   for  60 installments total Rs.6,000.00 which are marked as Annexures.   Thus, it is clear that the complainants had  paid amounts  to the OPs. After ,maturity  date  27.10.2015   the complainant had  made several demands to repay the said maturity, but the opposite parties kept silent. Moreover, there is no denial by the opposite parties  regarding the deposits made by the complainants. As per the document  it is clear that the opposite parties collected so much amount not only from the complainant but also from the public and these acts of the opposite parties clearly shows their attitude and deficiency in service, hence, the opposite parties have to refunded maturity amounts to the complainant.

          The complainants with a  hope invested  amount with the opposite parties, but because of the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant deprived of to get back his matured amounts and  they have  moved  around the offices of the opposite parties and because of the acts of the opposite parties, they have  suffered financially and mentally.

A preliminary study of the nature of the complaint  reveals that it is a case of breach of contract. As per the contract between the parties, the O.Ps in the instant case promised  to return the deposited amount to the  complainant  with a specified  rate of  interest when the  account matured, when   they  have  failed   to fulfill their obligations it tends to breach  of   contract.  Therefore a breach of contract  it self  may result in deficiency in service.  The  Consumer   Protection   Act, 1986  provides for a special remedy for  such grievances and for awarding compensation to the  aggrieved persons.   Their callousness in fulfilling their  deficiency in service to the  complainant  undoubtedly  tells of their deficiency  in service   to the complainant.

 

          To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

                                     

                                                ORDER.

          In  resultant, the complaint stands allowed in part, on exparte against the O.Ps.

          The O.Ps ordered  to pay the maturity amount a sum of Rs.6,000/- with  interest  @ Rs.9 % interest  per annum from the respective date of deposit till realization besides to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.   

          The above order is to be complied within   30 days  from the date of receipt of this order. Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

 Pronounced in the open Forum today on this          25th. day  of , October., 2018 .

 

Member                               Member.                                                   President