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-Nil Madhab Koley against the O.p. named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.p.

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

The complainant opened a fixed deposit account under the scheme of the O.p. on 06/09/2012 vide receipt no.562005342065 to the O.p.

The complainant deposited 1(one) monthly installment in the aforesaid F.D. Account, total amounting to Rs.70,000/- duly received by the O.p.

On expiry of the schedule tenure of five years, the complainant while went to deposit/submit the original papers/documents to O.p. The O.p. duly promised that they will make payment the maturity amount on the due date i.e. as on 06/09/2018.

Thereafter the complainant repeatedly requested lastly on 14/01/2019 the O.p. to make payment but the O.p. did not pay heed and did not disburse the maturity amount in favour of the complainant in respect of the above referred certificate.

Even after receiving the letter dated 06/09/2018, 12/12/2018 and lastly on 14/01/2019, the O.p. did not act to pay back the amount sought for by the complainant w.r.t. the subject fixed 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.p. to pay Rs.1,64,500/- (as maturity amount together-with interest on such maturity value till realization alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

O.p. contested the case by filing w.v. on 28/11/2019 denying all material allegations against them contending inter-alia that:-

The complainant did never approached the O.p. The O.p. 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.p.

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

There is not deficiency in service on the part of the O.p. O.p further contended a dispute 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.p. Hence, payment is delayed.

The O.p. in it’s 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

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.p. or there is any deficiency of service on the part of O.p.?

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

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.p. 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.p. also did not file show-cause as to why they should not be debarred from filing questionnaire.

Accordingly, the case further proceeded ex-parte against the O.p. vide order dated 28/07/2022 of this commission.

The case was posted for hearing on 08/02/2023 and on 14/10/2022, the complainant filed B.N.A. The case was heard in full.

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.p.

On the other hand, the O.p. 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 F.D. account, mentioned in the complaint has not been paid at all.

Since, the O.p. 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.p. cannot create a reason for shortage in providing natural justice.

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.

Thus, in view of the evidence filed by the complainant and the documents filed by him, not being challenged by the O.p. except mentioning some flimsy ground which we did not find to be appreciable, it is held that deficiency in service on the part of O.p. 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.161/2019 be and the same is allowed against the O.p. with cost.

O.p. is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,64,500/-, which was the maturity value of deposit paid to the O.p. by the complainant, together with interest @9% per annum for the entire period from date of maturity to date of payment/realization  within two months from the date of this order.

O.p. is also hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards his mental harassment and agony within two months from the date of this order.

O.p. are further hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- 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