Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, MEMBER

This is a complaint made by one Smt Usha Rani Pal against the Branch Manager and Managing Director of UNIVERSAL MULTISTATE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Ltd., praying for a direction upon the OPs to return the matured value of Rs.29,999/- along with interest @ 10% from 29-07-15 till realization, and compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 12,000/-

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, she invested a sum of Rs.  1,000/- per month as recurring deposit from 30-08-13 with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 for two year being Certificate No. RD 3296. The maturity value of the said deposit was RS, 29,999/-which matured on 29-07-14.On maturity, Complainant demanded the matured amount from the OP and submitted all relevant documents to facilitate this.  However, OPs have not settled her claim hence, this case.

OP No. 2 contested the case by filing WV, the OP No1 inspite of receiving summons refused the same so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No1, whereby OP No2. denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is further stated that the Complainant claimed the maturity proceeds through his Ld. Advocate without furnishing relevant documents for this purpose.  So, this OP asked the Complainant over phone to submit requisite documents, but the Complainant is yet to furnish the same.  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

Complainant has furnished photocopy of the purported Policy Certificate No. 1422, wherefrom it transpires that he deposited a sum of Rs. 1, 20,000/- with the OP No. 2 company.  It is stated that the same was invested in the OP No. 2 company through its branch office, i.e., OP No.1.  The OP No. 2 expressed its inability to settle Complainant’s claim over non-receipt of original policy certificate.  In this regard, it is asserted from the side of the Complainant that he submitted all the relevant documents to the office of the OP No. 1. Insofar as the factum of submission of relevant documents remains uncontroverted from the side of the OP No. 1, and above all, keeping in mind the fact that the Complainant has got nothing to gain withholding relevant documents with him, we see no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the version of Complainant stated under affidavit. 

On the other hand, although it is claimed by the OP No. 2 that it asked the Complainant over phone to furnish original documents, no tangible proof is advanced from their side to establish that.  Moreover, one wonders, what prevented them from dropping a few lines in response to the alleged legal notice served by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant.   That apart, there is no clarity as to how the OP No. 2 got hold of the telephone no. of the Complainant when supposedly the Complainant did not approach the OP No. 2 directly.  It is quite unusual for Ld. Advocates to mention the contact no. of their clients in their legal notices. Overall, we see no reason whatsoever to accept the contention of the OP No. 2 that non-receipt of relevant documents in original tied its hands.

Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that OP No. 2 has not received the original policy certificate and other relevant documents from its branch office, i.e., OP No. 1, though the Complainant submitted to redeem the policy certificate, to our mind, it is purely an internal administrative affair of the OPs.  In case the OP No. 1 indeed faltered in forwarding the original policy certificate and other documents submitted by the Complainant to the OP no. 2, such alleged laxity on the part of its branch office, as long as the authenticity of the policy certificate is not in dispute, is no ground at all to sit tight over the claim of the Complainant. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the Complainant in support of his submission relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported it 2014(4)CPR 95(NC). Wherein the Ld Commission held that Finance Company must Honour its commitments.

We, therefore, hold the OPs liable to refund the entire deposited money, i.e., Rs. 29,999/- together with compensation and litigation cost as there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

This complaint case, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/73/2016 is and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 2 and ex parte against the OP No. 1.  OPs are directed to pay, within 40 days hence, a sum of Rs. 29,999/- to the Complainant along with compensation in the form of interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of maturity, i.e., on and from 29-07-15 and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-. OP N Op no 2 is further directed to pay cost of Rs 500/- as per order dated 23-08-16.  Noncompliance of this order within the aforesaid stipulated time frame would entail a fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem from this date till full and final payment is made. The complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution as per law after the stipulated period is over.