SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

Gist of the complaint case is that being allured by the attractive interest the complainants invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 13.08.2012 to the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1. The monthly interest of Rs. 2000/- was paid to the complainant. After the date of maturity i.e on 13.02.2015 the OPs did not pay the principle amount of Rs 2,00,000/- and due interest. The office of the OP no1 requested the complainant to re- invest the money for the time being as the Co. was not in a position to pay the amount. So the investment was duly renewed on 13.08.2015 as per the prayer of the petitioners and ID No. TLL1052974 was issued in favour of the petitioners on 03.09.2015 for a sum of Rs. 2,57,500/-. The Co. did not pay the monthly interest on this re-invested amount since 01.09.2015 and an amount of Rs 1,40,000/- is due from the Co. towards interest. After expiry of the validity period i,e 13.02.2018 the complainant sent demand notice  to the OPs on 10.04.2018 claiming refund of the money but the Ops did not pay the amount of Rs 2,57,000/- to the complainant along with due interest of  Rs. 1,40,000/- till now.

Hence, the complainants have filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,97,000/- as principle and due interest  with further 10% interest per annum over the total due amount, till realization 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 reasons

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 dated 03.09.2015, issued by Krishna Kabir, the Director of the OP Co. which have well corroborated the statement of the complaints. 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 they 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 visa 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 complainants are Consumers 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/246 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. 3,97,000/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ Rs. 10% on the awarded amount till full realization of the same, 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.