SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant is that he invested sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the OP no. 2 through the OP no.1 on 10.06.10 being certificate No. AIRL/RCC0452176. The date of maturity of said amount was 10.06.2016. The complainant demanded back the money by sending a registered letter dated 09.11.2017 but the Ops did not respond.

Hence the case for a direction upon the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 250000/-to the complainant and other reliefs, as per complaint.

Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties but none of them turned up to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against  the OPs.

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 receipt issued by the OP no.2 dated 10.08.2013, signed by the Director BM Mahajan, it is seen that the OP no.1 has received an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the complainant and the expiry date of the tenure is 10.06.2016/-. The amount has been stated to have been received on the basis of an indenture of the complainant dated 10.06.2010 to offer an apartment/villa in the project area of the OP.

        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 the complainant 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 CPAct 1986 was enacted by a Parliament.

        Ld advocate appearing for the OP No.2 submitted at the time of argument that if the complainant files the case within two years  of the cause of action then the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs.

        It is found from the record that the case is filed well within the time stipulated above.

        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, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/598 of 2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs. 

        Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-along with interest @10% per annum from 10.06.2016 till final realization failing which the complainant will have the liberty to put the order into execution.

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