Date of filing :    30.07.2018.

Decided on            :    05.11.2019.

JUDGEMENT

Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 has been filed by Manish Kumar Choraria  against the O.Ps. named above  alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

On 21.05.2012, the complainant opened a Recurring Deposit Account vide  no. 15854206088 under scheme of the O.Ps. for a period of 60 months of which the mode of payment was Rs. 2,600/- per month. As per the terms of such scheme, the complainant would get redemption value of Rs. 2,02,020/- only after expiry of said tenure of 60 months. Thereafter the complainant paid 55 consecutive monthly installments up to 30.11.2016 and thus he deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,43,000/- in the said Recurring Deposit Account. After expiry of 60 months, the complainant requested the O.Ps. to pay him redemption amount of such deposit after deducting penalty charges for not depositing last 5 installments. Since no payment has been made by the O.Ps., so the complainant has filed this case praying for an order directing the O.Ps. to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,02,020/-after deducting  penalty charges for not depositing last five (5) installments and for an order of compensation and cost.

Both the O.Ps. appeared in this case and they also filed a joint W/V.

Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.Ps. that the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act and the relationship between the O.Ps. and the complainant is a debtor and creditor and the transaction in question is commercial-in-nature and therefore the present case is not maintainable before this Forum. The O.Ps. therefore claimed dismissal of the case with cost.

To prove his case the complainant has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and he has also filed some documents in support of his case. In spite of availing opportunity, O.Ps. did not file any questionnaire against the evidence of the complainant and they also tendered no evidence in support of their case.   

POINT FOR DECISION

       Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

In his evidence, the complainant Manish Kumar Choraria has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint and the documents filed by

him also lend support to the case of the complainant. In spite of opportunity, the O.Ps. did neither challenge the said evidence of the complainant by filing written questionnaire nor did they file any evidence supported by affidavit. So, the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged. Therefore in view of the evidence of the complainant and the documents filed by him, remaining unchallenged, it is held that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

      Hence,

                     it is,

                                    O R D E R E D

      that the Complaint Case No. 291/2018 is allowed on contest with cost against both the O.Ps. O.Ps. are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,02,020/- after deducting  penalty charges for not depositing last 5 (five) installments along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from date of filing of this case till realization in full. O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

      All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order.

      Let  plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

Dictated  &  corrected by   me. 

( Bibekananda Pramanik )                 

President,                                                               

D.C.D.R.F., Howrah.