For the complainant: Sri Krutibas Mund, Advocate

          For the O.P.        :  Not appeared.

                                         JUDGEMENT.

Sri A.K.Patra, President

1.  The  facts  of the case is that,  the complainant has filed this complaint  alleging deficiency in service  against  aforementioned Opposite Party    for  nonpayment of maturity amount   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
2. Upon Notice, the O.Ps.  neither appeared before the Commission  nor filed their  written version in spite of several adjournments granted by this Commission as such the case is heard from the Complainant  in absence of the Opposite Party. We therefore proceeded to dispose of the case, on its merit. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
3. From the  documents filed by the complainant it reveals that, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.47,200/- under Saharian Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd,/ the Opposite Party  vide Certificate  No.467000775623 dt.13.03.2018 for a period of three  and half years  which got maturity on 12.09.2021  .In support of  deposit the Complainant  has  filed  copies of    said Certificate. After due date of maturity  the complainant approached to the Opposite Party several times  for payment of maturity amount  but the Opposite Party  did not listen to the claim of the complainant   and refused to make payment of said maturity amount. 
4.  Here the doctrine of non – traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .The opposite party have neither    disputed nor produced any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Law is well settled that,  every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability.
5. Where the O.P has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance may placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in  M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).
6. We relied upon the judgment  reported in CCC 2005 page No. 192 (SS) where  the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Maharashtra  observed “ Consumer Protection Act,1986- Section 2(1)(O)- service-Co-operative society-service rendered by a  Credit Society in accepting deposits from the investors falls within definition of service. Now under Section 2(11) of the C.P.Act,2019.
7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case we found  that, the retention of deposited  amount  by the Opposite Party for  such a long time  even after the date of maturity amounts to  deficiency in service as defined  U/S Sec.2(11) of C.P.Act 2011  ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. And includes (i) any action negligence of omission or commission by such person which cause loss or injury to the consumer (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.
8.  This Commission found that , the  act of withholding  payment  by the Opposite Party is not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party . Hence the complainant deserves to be compensated. In our view the interest of justice would met if this Commission award accrued interest from the date of maturity till its realization.  In view of the above discussion relating to this case and referring citations   we here by allowed the above complaint petition in part.
9. Hence, to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                         

                                           ORDER

            In result  the complaint petition is allowed  in  part   against the Opposite Party.   The Opposite Party is  directed   to  pay the maturity value  of  Fixed Deposit amount   Rs.47,200/- which got matured on 12.09.2021   with  interest  @ Rs.12 % per annum  from the date of  maturity till realization. Since we award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the Opposite Party  after the due date, no further compensation is awarded inter alia to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

         The Opposite Party is   ordered to make compliance the aforesaid    Order   within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order .The pending application if any is also stands disposed off.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                 President

I   agree

               Member

 Pronounced in open Commission today on this   17^th day of August 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission