SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

Gist of the complaint case is that being allured by the attractive interest the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- on 20.03.2015 for  36 months MIS vide Customer ID No. TYY0067418 scheduled to be matured on 20.03.18. The complainant did not get any offer for any plot/villa or apartment from the Ops during the tenure of the investment. A huge amount of interest is due from the Ops. The complainant demanded the back the money with due interest and sent legal notice on 27/3/2018  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. 1,48,500/- in total,  including principal and due interest with 10% per annum  interest per annum from the date of maturity of all the investment and other reliefs. 

Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. None of the OPs contested 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,  issued by CS Jolly, the Director of the OP Co. which have well corroborated the statement of the complaint. The OPs did not appear to challenge the contents of the complaint petition.

          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 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/198 of 2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs. 

          Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum return Rs. 1,48,500/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ Rs. 10% from the date of the maturity of all the investments, 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.