SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT.
Facts of the complaint case, in short is that having got allured by the attractive interest the complainant invested certain amount with the OP Co. in the following manner:
- Rs. 75.000/- vide Certificate No. TB08037790 dt of maturity on 31.01.2021,
- Rs. 50.000/- vide Certificate No. TB00367093 dt of maturity on 16.02.2032
3. Rs1,00.000/- vide Certificate No. TB00037752 dt of maturity on 06.06.2030
4. Rs1,00.000/- vide Certificate No. TA00428752 dt of maturity on 31.07.2028
5. Rs1,00.000/- vide Certificate No. TA050460272 dt of maturity on 30.09.2029
6. Rs1,50.000/- vide Certificate No. TA05497765 dt of maturity on 30.03.2029.
Under some compelling circumstances, the complainant wanted premature withdrawal of the amount and prayed before the Ops for the same, but the Ops did snot pay the amount nor paid any heed to the claim of the complainant. Hence, this case with for a direction upon the Ops to pay Rs. 5,75,000/- with interest up to date.
Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. The OPs did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case is herd ex parte against the OPs.
Points need to be considered are whether(1) 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, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion and decision for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainants and the copy of money receipt/certificates produced by the complainant and find that the particulars of the complaint fully tally with the particulars of the certificate. None of the OPs has turned up to controvert the statement of the complaint. 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. 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 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 (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 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.
Thus both the points are answered accordingly.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That CC/179 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.
Both the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay a sum return Rs.5,75,000/- to the complainants 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, and a further amount of Rs. 2000/- towards litigation cost after deducting all applicable taxes and administrative costs, 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.
