SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

Gist of the complaint case is that the complainant invested  a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as one time investment for three MIS on 03.12.2015 to the OP No. 1 through the OP no.1 being certificate No. TB00046212 and Rs. 500/- was fixed as interest per month. The complainant did not get any monthly return. In the last part  of February, 2017 she noticed that the office of the OP No.1 is closed. Apprehending loss of entire investment she has filed this case for return of the invested amount. 

Hence, the complainant  has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/-  with due monthly interest upto date at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and other reliefs.

Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties.  Neither of the OPs turned up to contest the case. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OPs.

Points need to be considered are whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief(s) sought for by him.

Decision with reason

Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision for sake of convenience .

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and the copy of the money receipt produced by the complainant, issued by the Director of the OPs, Krishna Kabir dated 03.12.2015 wherein it is found that the OPs received the amount as mentioned in the certificates and also referred by the complainants in the complaint. It is also written therein that the offer shall cease on and from 11.12.2018.

It appears that this case has been filed pre- matured on the ground that the local office of the OP No.1 has been withdrawn. Apprehending loss of the investment the complainant has filed this case which is maintainable.

          Two decisions reported in 2016(4), CPR 325 (NC) and (2), 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) have been referred in support of the case of the complainant. The first decision says non- payment of redemption/maturity 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 controvert that the complainant paid the amount as asserted by the complainant.       

          The second decision speaks that depositor 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 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 vise the supplier of service or goods. It is to overcome this advantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of CP 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/ 464 of 2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs. 

          Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum return Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with MIS of Rs. 500/-per month up to the date of filing of this case,  within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ Rs. 10% from the date of the filing of this case till full realization of the awarded amount, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

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