Complainant Sri Saroj Banik with other three Complainants, who have the same interest, have filed the present case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as Consumer, praying for issuing a direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainants the maturity amounts against invested money with compensation and cost as incorporated in the concluding part of the complaint.

            The factual matrix of the case as can be gathered from the record is that the Complainant No. 1 with other three Nos. Complainants invested certain amount to the office of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 through their agent Proforma Opposite Party No. 3 Sri Manoj Banik against which the Policies/Pass Book/Money Receipts were issued by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2.

            The prime allegation of the Complainants is that after lapse of maturity period the Complainant submitted all the original documents to the office of the O.P. No. 1 with a desire to get back the maturity amount but the Opposite Parties failed to pay the maturity amounts as described in the in the complaint (page-2) hence, the dispute in between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties has been cropped up. The O.P. No. 1 issued an acknowledgement receipt to the Complainants after receiving the aforesaid documents. After that the Complainants several times contacted with the Opposite Parties but no positive result yet came out and finding no other alternative, they have filed the present case seeking redress intending to get their maturity amount with compensation and cost.

The instant complaint has been filed for Rs. 3,18,976/- along with Xerox copies of Money Receipts, Petition etc. and I.P.Os. of Rs. 200/- deposited and the complaint was registered as DF 123/2013.

            After admission hearing the Notices were issued upon the all the three Opposite Parties. Despite receiving the notices none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 as such the case was taken up in ex-parte hearing against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2. The proforma Opposite Party No. 3 entered his appearance after receiving the Notice but did not contest the case by filing W/V, evidence on affidavit for which Ex-parte was fixed upon also the Pro. Opposite Party No. 3. Ultimately, the case was heard in Ex-parte against all the Opposite Parties.

            In the light of the facts of the case, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Are the Complainants Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
3. Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants?
4. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASON

             We have perused the entire documents in the record and heard the Ex-parte argument of the agent of the complainants in full. Perused the Evidence on affidavit with the original documents marked as Annexure ‘A’, series, “B” series & Annexure “C” filed by the Complainants.          

Point No. 1 & 2.

            The Complainants procured Receipts, Certificates against investment in Monthly Savings Scheme with the Opposite Party i.e. Opposite Party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 issued money receipt by receiving the certain amount from the complainants with assurance to return the same with huge interest in the name of the Gold value, Product value etc. thus the relation between the complainant and the opposite parties as established from the record clearly depicts that the Complainants are the Consumers of the opposite parties.

 The opposite party No. 1 and 3 in the present case are the resident of this district and/or have their branch office in this district and the complaint value of Rs. 3,18,976/- which is far less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,0000/- for which there is no dispute in the point of territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3.

            Undisputedly the 4 Nos. Complainants deposited huge amount to the Opposite Party No. 1 through their agent Sri Manoj Banik in this case Proforma Opposite Party No. 3. The Opposite Party No. 1 issued Pass Book/ Money Receipt in favour of the Complainants from which it is crystal clear that what amount they had deposited/invested (with assured value) to the Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainants stated in the complaint and also in evidence on affidavit that the Opposite Party No. 1 issued Pass Book (Annexure A series) which is only Money Receipts reflecting the date of Issuance, Maturity Date and also total amount received by the Opposite Party. All the Money Receipts (Pass Book) bearing Seal and/or Signature of the Opposite Party Company.

            On giving a close look to the materials on record as marked as Annexure A to B series it appears that the Complainant No. 1 i.e. Saroj Banik booked a product with value of Rs. 900/- with the Opposite Parties I-core E-Services Ltd. and paid the advance product booking installment amount of Rs. 900/- on 27-09-2012. As per Receipt No. 38557092 dated 27-09-2012 he paid Rs.900/- in 08 No. of installments and as such he paid in total 7,200/-. The maturity date of the said Policy/Share/Bond/Product was 27-09-2013. The maturity amount of the said Policy/Share/Bond/ Product was Rs. 7,488/- only. Besides, the other 3 Nos. of Complainants deposited the amount as described in the following table.

Now, the main contention of the Complainants is that they deposited the previously mentioned amount to the Opposite party but after maturity period they did not get the Sum assured/Product Value/Maturity Amount/Deposited Amount as per the terms & conditions of the said deposits.

            The Complainants failed to file the documents like all the Money Receipts, Original Pass Book, Policy Proposal, and Policy Terms & Conditions etc. before this Forum. Annexure “C” reveals that the Complainants deposited all the aforesaid documents to the O.P. No. 1.

            It also appears that some documents have been filed by the complainant marked as Annexure-‘B’ in which it has been noted that the Complainants have already received the Product Value/Sum assured/Deposited amount on full and final adjustable and have no outstanding dues. Those documents/receipts are duly signed by the Complainants with Seal and signed by the Opposite Party Company with date. From those documents prima-facie it appears that the Complainants have taken the matured amount with interest from the Opposite Party Company against their deposit but surprisingly, those originals documents lying in the hand of the Complainants those must have been in the custody of the Opposite parties. Thus it is reasonably be presumed that the Opposite parties with some ill motive bound the Complainants to sign the documents but not paid them the deposited amount as stated in the said receipts also at the time of argument the agent of the Complainant vehemently stated that a mass No. of Money Marketing Agency in Cooch Behar District carry on their business in such a way by giving false assurance to make payment a huge amount within a short period. When the depositors made contact with the Opposite parties to save their skin, the Opposite parties by adopting unfair trade practice issued receipts with Seal & Signature also with a Signature of customer from which it can be presume that the customer received the matured amount. In this manner, they cheated their customers like the Complainants of the present case. The Complainants deposited certain amount in some installments as per chart made in the complaint.

            This Complainants invested a huge amount for getting handsome return from the end of the Opposite Parties but did not get any maturity amount as a consequence this Complainants become the prey of the Opposite Parties.

            From the material on record it appears that the Opposite Party Company is a fake one and is not affiliated to any organization and having no license at all to collect money from numerous Consumers in such a way.

            From the unchallenged statement made by the Complainant on affidavit, it is established that they being attracted by knowing the lucrative return against the deposit of a certain amount the Complainants come to be convinced and invested total amount of Rs. 1,18,976/- with the Opposite Parties for the purpose of having a handsome return as assured by the Opposite Parties and such fact of receiving the amount has been proved by the copy of Pass Books/Money Receipts and receipt of payment.

            In the case in hand despite receiving the Notice except none appear before this Forum to contest the case that means the Opposite Parties have nothing to say against the allegation brought by the Complainants. The materials to its entirety on record goes to substantiate that the opposite parties by launching a cheat fund in the name and style I-Core E-Services Limited collected huge amount from the Complainants by suppressing the truth and ultimately deceived the Complainants by adopting unfair trade practice. While the Opposite Parties proved to have deprived the Complainant and failed to award the benefit to them as agreed upon, this Forum is of the clear opinion that the Opposite Party No. 1&2 are guilty of deficiency in service. That being the position the complaint is deserve to be allowed. Consequently, the Complainants must be awarded with reliefs in part, as they invited the cause of misery of their own. Besides, we did not find any documents to show that the Complainants deposited the amount through the pro. O.P. No. 3 and thus, unable to hold deficiency in Service against the Pro. O.P. No. 3.

            As it is already proved that the Complainants are the Consumers and the Opposite Party No. 1&2 are guilty of deficiency in service by adopting the arm of unfair trade practice and when the claim of the Complainants is genuine, we decide the case in favour of the Complainants without any hesitation and allowed reasonable relief as per law, equity and gravity of the case.

ORDER

            Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint case is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 in part with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the complainants (Rs. 2,500/- each) and dismissed against the Proforma O.P. No. 3.   

The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and/or severally shall pay the Complainants  Rs.1,18,976/- the total investment amount of the 4 Nos. of Complainants with interest @ 6% from the date of deposit as per capital investment reflected in the Table, page No. 2  of the complaint/page no. 3 of this final order.

            The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay jointly and/or severally Rs. 12,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service to the 4 Nos. of Complainants (Rs. 3,000/- to each of the complainants).

The Opposite Party No. 1&2 are further directed to pay jointly and/or severally the entire ordered amount directly to the concerned parties (4 petitioners/complainants) within 45 days failure of which the Opposite Parties jointly and/or severally shall pay Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the representative complainant by hand / Registered post  free of cost with  A/D and also to the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 forthwith as per rules. 

Dictated and corrected by me.                                                                                                                          

                Member,                                                                                             President,

   District Consumer Disputes                                                                    District Consumer Disputes                       

 Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                                              Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.       

                                                                  Member,                                                          

                                                     District Consumer Disputes                                                   

                                                  Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar