SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Facts of the complaint case in short is that being allured and influenced by the attractive interest of the Ops Co. the complainant became policy holder which Rs. 300/- as 30 redeemable preference share each of Rs. 10 was invested with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time  being Certificate No. 07307 and Regd. Folio No. PB007307 on 26.11.2005 which was matured on 06.10.2017 and maturity value is Rs.15,300/-. Complainant again became policy holder which Rs. 500/- as 50 redeemable preference share each of Rs. 10 was invested with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time being Certificate No. 028064 and Regd. Folio No. PB028064   on 28.11.2017  which was matured on 28.11.2017 and maturity value is Rs.25,500/-. Complainant again became policy holder which Rs. 1,000/- as 100 redeemable preference share each of Rs. 10 was invested with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time being Customer No. 023307 and Regd. Folio No. PB023307 on 23.10.2005 which was matured on 18.11.2017 and maturity value is Rs.51,000/-. Complainant again became policy holder which Rs. 1,000/- as 100 redeemable preference share each of Rs. 10 was invested with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time being Certificate No. 007626 and Regd. Folio No. PB007626 on 05.10.2005 which was matured on 15.10.2017 and maturity value is Rs.51,000/-. Complainant became policy holder which Rs. 1,000/- as 100 redeemable preference share each of Rs. 10 was invested with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time being Certificate No. 010707 and Regd. Folio No. PB010707 on 12.12.2005 which was matured on 31.10.2017 and maturity value is Rs.51,000/-. Complainant became policy holder which Rs. 1,000/- as 100 redeemable preference share each of Rs. 10 was invested with the OP no. 2 through the Op no.1 for one time being Certificate No. 027913 and Regd. Folio No. PB027913 on 04.01.2006 which was matured on 24.11.2017 and maturity value is Rs.51,000/-. After maturity the complainant submitted all the necessary documents and claimed the total maturity amount of Rs. 2,45,300/- but the OPs did not pay the same.

          Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,45,300/- as maturity amount  with interest till full realization of the said amount and other reliefs.

 Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. Despite service of summons the OPs did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the OPs.

Points for determination are:

 1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                                                2.    Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and the copy of money receipt/certificate produced by the complainant and find that the particulars of the complaint fully corroborate with the particulars of the certificate. None of the OPs has turned up to controvert the statement of the complaint on oath. So the complainant has been successful in proving his case.

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. It appears that in 2016(4), CPR 325 (NC) it has been decided that 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.  In 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) it has been decided that the 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 person.  Consumer law being a beneficial legislation, the Commission 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 op 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in the matter dispute concerning a consumer that 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 visa vise the supplier of service or goods.

          In view of 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 Consumer Protection Act 2019(An Act to promote, protect and enforce the rights of the consumers) and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties according to the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

         Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/168 of 2020 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

          The Opposite Parties, who are jointly and severally liable, are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,44,800/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till full realization of the awarded amount with further Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

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