SMT. CHANDRIMA CHKRABORTY, MEMBER,
In short, case of the Complainant is that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 25.02.2012 to the OP no. 2 through the OP no 1 for a fixed period of six years and the date of maturity was 25.02.2018 and the maturity amount was Rs. 40,000/- vide certificate No. /RD00662951. After the date of maturity the complainant claimed the maturity value but the Ops did not care to refund it. The complainant deposited all the relevant documenets.
Hence, the instant case with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to return the complainant an amount of Rs. 4,12,000/- and other reliefs.
Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. None of the OPs appeared to contest the case by filing written version. So the case is heard ex parte against both the Ops.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. From the copy of certificate of property dated 17.03.2012 issued by the OP no. 2 it is seen that the OP no.1 has received the amount as mentioned in the complaint. All the particulars of the complaint tally with the particulars of the said money receipts. So the complainant has been able to prove his case ex parte. The OPs did not appear to contract the statement of the complainant.
Three decisions reported in (1) 2015(2),CPR 481 (NC), (2) 2016(4),CPR 325 (NC) and (3) 2016(4),CPR 723 (NC) have been referred in support of the case of the complainant. The first decision says non- payment of redemption 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 turn up to controvert the claim of the complainant.
The second decision says that guarantor is liable for default committed by the guaranteed.
The third 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 and it also appears that Hon’ble judge only quashed the CC 218 of 16 but the observation in a single case cannot be applicable in all such cases.
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 C 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/356 of 2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.
Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- within one month from the date of this order along with interest @10% per annum from the date of maturity in each case, till final realization, in default the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
