F I N A L  O R D E R

Subir Kumar Dass, Member - This is an application under section 12 of C. P. Act,

1986 has been filed by the complainant-Sri Lalit Kumar Baid against the O.ps. named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

Complainant’s case, in brief, is given below:-

The complainant opened a recurring deposit account under the scheme of the O.ps. on 31/01/2013 for a tenure of 60 months for depositing Rs.10,000/- per month during the tenure and as per the scheme offered by the O.ps. the complainant would get redemption value of such investment to the tune of Rs.7,77,000/- from the O.ps. vide account no.15854800386 for which a pass book bearing no.371015293900 in the name of M/S Roopshree Gem & Jewellers, a shop solely owned by the complainant, was issued by the O.ps.

The complainant deposited 47 consecutive monthly installment upto 07/12/2016 in the aforesaid R.D. Account, total amounting to Rs.4,70,000/- duly received by the O.ps. out of the scheduled 60 monthly installments.

On expiry of the schedule tenure of 60 months, the complainant while went to deposit/submit the original papers/documents to O.ps. The O.ps. denied to accept these original papers/documents and assured the complainant that after few months they will issue cheque in favour of the complainant for the redemption amount after deducting the penalty charges for not paying 13 monthly installments.

Thereafter as the O.ps. did not to pay the redemption amount during a prolonged period of time, the complainant sent letter dated 19/05/2018 to the O.ps. through speed post requesting for payment of the redemption amount .

Even after receiving the said letter dated 19/05/2018, the O.ps. did not act to pay back the amount sought for by the complainant w.r.t. the subject recurring deposit account.

Under such circumstances and finding no other alternative way, the complainant filed this case before this commission praying for direction to the O.ps. to refund the redemption amount of Rs.7,77,000/- after deducting the amount for not depositing 13 monthly installment of Rs.10,000/- each with interest for the period from date of maturity to date of realization; alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for O.ps. for mental and financial harassment with interest and litigation costs.

O.ps. contested the case by filing w.v. on 29/10/2018 denying all materials allegations against them contending inter-alia that:-

The complainant did never approached the O.ps. The O.ps. never denied to make payment to the complainant.

The material allegation of the complainant is not true, not valid in law and binding on O.ps.

The complainant is not a consumer of the O.ps.

There is not deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. They further contended that despite with SEBI, is pending with Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as the Apex Court imposed embargo on movable and immovable properties of O.ps. Hence, payment is delayed.

The O.ps. in their w.v. also mentioned that the cause of action noted in the complaint is not correct, valid in law; hence the instant case is not maintainable. As such the instant case is to be dismissed.

POINT FOR DECISION

In support of the case, complainant filed evidence on affidavit and added that the complainant will not adduce any other evidence.

On the other hand the O.ps. did not file any questionnaire against complainant’s evidence on affidavit, evidence on affidavit and kept themselves away from the proceedings after filing the w.v. The O.ps. also did not file show-cause as to why they should not be debarred from filing evidence on affidavit.

Accordingly, the case further proceeded ex-parte against the O.ps. vide order dated 12/10/2022 of this commission.

The case was posted for hearing on 02/12/2022 and on that day, the complainant filed B.N.A. The case was heard in full.

Whether the complainant is the consumer of the O.ps. or not?

Whether this commission (formally forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the point of the O.ps. or there is any deficiency of service on the part of O.ps.?

Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

            We have applied our mind and gone through the case records thoroughly and carefully.

On close scrutiny of the materials on record it reveals that the complaint is a consumer under Section 2(i)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 to the O.ps.

In our view, the complainant, through his submission in evidence on affidavit, Brief Noted of argument together with the copies of documents furnished with complaint, has succeeded to prove his case.

On the other hand, the O.ps. in their only submission in the form of w.v. only denied the complaint on flimsy ground. Rather they admitted the fact that payment of amount against the R.D. account, mentioned in the complaint has not been paid at all.

Since, the O.ps. did not turn up and did not participate in the proceeding after filing w.v., it is clear that the point of providing natural justice to them has duly been complied with and has not been anyway compromised with. They, at their sweet will kept themselves absent throughout the proceeding after filing w.v. Thus act on behalf of O.ps. cannot create a reason for shortage in providing natural justice.

Thus, in view of the evidence filed by the complainant and the documents filed by him, not being challenged by the O.ps. except mentioning some flimsy ground which we find to be non-tenable, it is held that deficiency in service on the part of O.ps. is established beyond doubt and thus the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to get the relief as sought for as well as entitled for.

            Hence,

it is,

ORDERED

            That the instant complaint case being No.306/2018 be and the same is allowed against the O.ps. with cost

O.ps. are hereby directed to pay Rs.4,70,000/-, which was paid to the O.ps. by the complainant, together with interest @9% per annum for the entire period of deposit kept with the O.ps. within two months from the date of this order.

O.ps. are also hereby directed to pay RS.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards his mental harassment and agony within two months from the date of this order.

O.ps. are further hereby directed to pay RS.25,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost within two months from the date of this order.

The complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

Let copies of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

 (Mr. Subir Kumar Dass)

Member, D.C.D.R.C., Howrah