Smt. Bandana Roy, President

This is a complaint made by one Sri Anupam Mal against the Branch Manager and Managing Director of UNIVERSAL MULTI STATE CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.  praying for a direction upon the OPs to return the matured value of Recurring Deposit of Rs.40505/- along with interest @ 10% from 29.08.2014 till realization, and compensation for a sum of Rs.50000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8000/-.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, he invested a sum of Rs.3000/-, as Recurring deposit per month from 30.08.2013 with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 for 1 year being Certificate No RD 3241. The date of maturity of the above Recurring deposit was on 29.08.2014 and the maturity value was Rs.40505/-. On maturity, Complainant demanded the maturity value from the OP and submitted all relevant documents to facilitate this. However, OPs have not settled his claim hence, this case.

OP No. 2 contested the case by filing WV, the OP No. 1 in spite of receiving summons refused the same so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No. 1, whereby OP No. 2 denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The OP No. 2 stated that the instant complaint does not come under the ambit of the Forum. It is further stated that the Complainant claimed the maturity proceeds without furnishing relevant documents for this purpose. Thus, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point to be considered in this case is whether or not the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him.

Decision with reasons

                 We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. The only defense of the OP No. 2 is that the case does not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 2  argued that the OP no.2 has gone under liquidation but that plea has not been taken by OP No.2 in their W/V. Besides that, the W/V filed by the OP no.2 is verified against the affidavit of the complainant. It appears that the submission of the ld. Lawyer of OP No.2 has no merit as because what has been filed by the OP No. 2 as order of liquidation does not affect the complaint. It is not a binding on the complainant. After going through the W/V of the OP No. 2 it appears that the OP more or less admitted their fault. But nothing has been proved by cogent evidence by the OP. Hence, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the investment.

This complaint case, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/198/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 2 and exparte against the OP No. 1. OPs are directed to pay, maturity value of Rs.40505/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, in default, OPs will have to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till final payment. OPs are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which OPs will be liable to pay Rs.100/- daily as punitive charges which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

          Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to all the parties free of cost.