F I N A L O R D E R / J U D G E M E N T
Judgment Delivered by: -
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case: ─ This consumer complaint under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the OPs named above alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
That complainant opened a Recurring Account vide No. 15854806491 under the scheme of the OPs on 14/12/2013 for a tenure of 60(sixty) months of which the mode of payment was Rs.2,000/- per month only and after completion of said tenure i.e. after 60(sixty) months complainant would get a redemption value of Rs.1,55,400/- only from the OPs and accordingly OPs provided a Pass Book bearing No. 371008395505 (details of which have been mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ in the petition of complaint of complainant).
That thereafter complainant deposited 38(thirty eight) consecutive monthly installments up to 31/12/2016 i.e. Rs.76,000/- only out of said 60(sixty) monthly installments and OPs received the same from the complainant (details of which have been annexed in Annexure ‘B’ in the petition of complaint of complainant) and after expiry of said tenure of 60(sixty) months complainant went to deposit her all original papers and documents but OPs had not receive the same, moreover, assured for issuing a cheque in her favour as redemption amount according to installments paid by the complainant after deducting penalty charges for not depositing last 22(twenty) monthly installments. But, days passed away, OPs did not pay any single amount to the complainant. As mentioned in Annexure ‘C’, complainant sent letter to the OPs, requesting them to pay her the due but till date not a single amount has been received by the complainant. Complainant alleges severe harassment, mal-activities, financial negligence and agony against the OPs. Thus, the complainant prays before this Commission (formerly Forum) for: -
- Compensation of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) from the OPs for mental harassment and financial negligence.
- Direction to the OPs to refund Redemption Amount of Rs.1,11,400/- against the installments paid by the complainant along with interest from the date of expiry of said tenure till the realization of such amount.
- Simple interest upon all the dues from the OPs till realization of such amount.
- All litigation costs.
- Other reliefs.
Defense Case as per OP: − OPs have contested the case by filing W/V denying all the material allegations and contented inter alia that: -
The instant case is not maintainable according to law or in fact and because non submission of documents as well as KYC from the end of the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such, OPs have prayed before this Commission for dismissal of the present case with heavy costs.
Issue(s) / Point(s) for Consideration
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following point(s) for consideration: -
- Whether the complainant is the consumer to the OPs or not?
- Whether this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs or there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
On close scrutiny from the materials on record, it reveals that the complainant is the consumer under Section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to the OPs.
Complainant appears to be the resident of Howrah whereas OPs are also having their residences/office in district of Howrah, West Bengal and in the State of UP. Considering the nature of the case and prayers of the complainant it straightway gives clear signal that pecuniary value of the case is within Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. within the limit of this Commission (formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
It may be noted that as per materials on record complainant filed examination-in-chief against the written version of OPs and complainant also filed BNA.
On the other hand, OPs did not file any questionnaire or evidence on affidavit and no other steps has been taken from the end of the OPs except W/V.
In this instant case the Ops have not filed any separate application challenging the maintainability of this case. However, the Ops in their written version alleged that this case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing this case and this case is barred by limitation and this court has no jurisdiction to try this case. In the foregoing observation, it has already been observed by this District Commission that this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction for trying this case. In view of this position, the point of contention of the Ops that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case is not acceptable.
Regarding the point of limitation, this District Commission after going through the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 finds that this case has been filed within the stipulated period of time and so this case is maintainable in the eye of law and this case is not barred by limitation. Over the issue of the question as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not, this District Commission after going through the pleadings of the parties and also after observing the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 finds that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops. So, the above noted allegation of the Ops that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops cannot be accepted.
It is also important to note that the complainant has filed this case within stipulated period of time and the cause of action has been continued and so it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for filing this case by the complainant.
Considering all the above noted factors this District Commission is of the view that this case is maintainable in the eye of law and this District Commission has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case and this case is not barred by limitation and the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law and complainant has cause of action for filing this case. So, all the above noted points are decided in favour of the complainant side.
The point of consideration No. 3 has been adopted on the ground whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops or there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops or not? The point of consideration No. 4 is related with the question whether the complainant is entitle to get any relief/reliefs in this case or not? Regarding these two issues this District Commission after going through the evidence on record finds that the complainant has opened the recurring account under the scheme of the Ops and invested a lump-sum amount in both the scheme. It is also revealed from the evidence on record that the complainant deposited 38(thirty eight) consecutive monthly installments up to 31/12/2016 amounting to Rs.76,000/- in total. It is also evident from the evidence on record that the Ops have not yet paid any single amount to the complainant. In this regard, it is very important to note that the evidence given by the complainant side has not been challenged by the Ops by way of filing interrogatories and so the evidence given by the complainant side by virtue of evidence on affidavit remain unchallenged and/or uncontroverted. From the four corners of the case record it cannot be said that the evidence given by the complainant side by way of furnishing evidence on affidavit is questionable. In other words, it can be said that the evidence on affidavit which has been filed by the complainant side is found trustworthy and believable and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
Considering all the above noted factors and after making scrutiny of the evidence on record this District Commission finds that complainant has proved her case in respect of all the issues framed in this case and she has categorically shown that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,400/- from the Ops along with interest at the rate of rupees 9(nine) per cent per annum and the complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the Ops as there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.
In the result, it is accordingly,
O R D E R E D
That this Complaint Case being No. 358 of 2019 be and same is allowed on contest but in part.
It is held that the complainant is entitled to get the redemption amount of Rs.1,11,400/- along with interest @ rupees 9% per annum from the Ops.
Complainant is also found entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the Ops.
The Ops are directed to pay the above noted amount to the complainant within 45(forty five) days from the date of this award failing which the complainant is given liberty for executing this award as per law.
In the event of failure or non-compliance of the above noted directions by the Ops, they are bound to pay Rs.5,000/- in the Consumer Legal Account of D.C.D.R.C., Howrah which is to be utilized in the welfare of the poor litigant public.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/send by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the following website Dictated & Corrected by me
(Shri Debasish Kr. Bandyopadhyay)
President, DCDRC, Howrah
