SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

This is a complaint made by one Kalipada Das against the Branch Manager and Directors of Alchemist Township India Limited, Haldia Branch, praying for a direction upon the Opposite Parties. to pay the Maturity value of Rs. 3.63,,000/-along with interest @ 10% from the date of maturity till realization, compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

In short, case of the Complainant is that he invested a sum of Rs. 3.00,000/- with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 for three years MIS  being receipt Memo No. TA 05392828 on 08.04.2014. The maturity date of the investment was 08.04.2017 and the maturity amount was Rs. 300,000/-. The complainant did not get the monthly interest for few months @ Rs 3000/-per month and the total due is Rs. 63,000/-. On the due, the Complainant demanded the maturity value from the Opposite Parties and filed all the relevant documents, but the Opposite Parties declined to return the amount hence, this case.

 Summons  were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No 1 appeared by filing power but did not contest the case. So the case is heard ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

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

Decision with reasons

          We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. From the copy of the certificate of property issued by the OP no.2 dated 29.04.2014 signed by the Director, C.S Jolly, it is seen that the OP no.1 has received an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant and the expiry date of the tenure is 08.04.2017 and a number of receipts showing payment of Rs. 3000/- per month as interest has also been filed by the complainant. But the claimant has contended that he has due of Rs. 63000/- as interest and he is entitled to get Rs. 3.63,000/- from the Opposite Parties.

          Three decisions reported in (1) 2015(2), CPR 481 (NC), (2) 2016(4),CPR 325 (NC) and (3) 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) have been referred in support of the case of the complainant. The first decision says non- payment of redemption amount even on receipt of the unit certificates is an act of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Company. Here the Opposite Parties did not turn up to controvert that the complainant paid Rs 50,000/-to the Co.

          The second decision says that guarantor is liable for default committed by the guaranteed.

          The third decision speaks that depositor s shall have continuous cause of action to seek recovery of the amount of his fixed deposit.

          In this case it appears that sham paper transaction has been created in order to take deposit of money from the presumably illiterate persons.  Consumer Forum being a beneficial legislation, here president cannot overlook this type of transaction Forum cannot overlook that in this way some companies are taking money from the poor people and filling up their iron chest.

          Ld advocate for the complainant argued that he along with many persons have been cheated by the Co. They did not get any offer document from the Opposite Parties except the receipt /certificate as above. They have invested money with the Co. on the assurance that they would get maximum value after the maturity period. But they have not received said amount.

          In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 (Supreme court) Hon’ble Justice of Madan B. Lakur observed in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view  of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage  vis a vis the supplier of service or goods. It is to overcome this advantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of C Act 1986 was enacted by a Parliament.

          In view the aforesaid decisions and on the basis of the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint supported by affidavit, it is clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer under the C P Act 1986 and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           Hon’ble National Commission of India held that technicalities will not be looked into very seriously while dealing with the consumer case.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That CC/469 of 2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

          Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,63,000/-along with interest @10% per annum from the date of maturity till final realization, compensation of Rs. 2000/- and  litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay Rs 100/- per day as punitive  charge till full satisfaction of the award.  This charge will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

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