SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT,
The case of the complainants is that being allured by the attractive interest of the OP Co. on 25.02.2015 the complainants invested a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- at a time in MIS scheme with the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1 being Certificate No.TA02326331 which was returnable on 25.02.2018. After the date of maturity when the complainant deposited all relevant papers and claimed the said invested amount the Ops did not pay the same.
Hence, the complaint has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the Ops to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as maturity amount along with further interest till full satisfaction and other reliefs.
Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties. But neither of them appeared to contest the complaint. So, the case is heard ex parte.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by her.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and all the documents filed by the complainant. From the copy of the certificates of property
issued by the OP Co. it appears that the contents of the complaint fully tally with the particulars of the complaint petition.
Decision with reasons.
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 complainants. 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.
The second decision says that guarantor is liable for default committed by the guaranteed.
The third decision speaks that depositor s 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 did not get any offer document from the Opposite Parties. except the receipt /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 (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/163 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.
Both the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-along with interest @10% per annum from the date of maturity till final realization and compensation of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complaint will be at liberty to put this order into execution.
Let the copies of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
