SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, she invested a sum of Rs.30,000/- as  Secured Non-convertible Redeemable Debenture of  30 of Rs. 1000/- each on 03.10..2013 with the OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 being Certificate No. 00258666. The date of redemption was 02.10.2015 and the redemption value of the said debenture was Rs. 39,690/-. On 02.10.2015 the Complainant demanded the redemption value from the OPs by depositing all the relevant papers. But the Ops did not pay the same.

Hence the complainant has filed this case against the Ops for a direction upon the OPs to pay the redemption value of Rs.39,690/- along with interest @ 10% from 02.10.2015 till realization, compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

          Summons were issued upon the OPs. OP No. 2 appeared but did not file WV on the ground that the Managing Director of the Co. is in custody but gave assurance that the co. would return the amount.  OP No 1 did not appear at all. So the case is heard ex parte against both 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. 

          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 03.10.2013, signed by the Director  of the OP Co. it is seen that the OP no.1 has received an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant and the redemption date  is 02.10.2015 and the redemption value is Rs. 39,690/-.

          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 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.

          It is found from the record that the case is filed well within the time of limitatin.

          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/447 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.39,690/- to the complainant along with interest @10% per annum from 02.10.2015 till final realization within one month from the date of this order, 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.