SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

Gist of the complaint case is that being allured by the attractive interest the complainants invested a sum of Rs. 1.00,000/- at a time  to the OP no. 2 through the OP no 1 on 14/02/2015 being Certificate No. TB00325014 for some monthly return. The complainants did not get any monthly return. The said investment got matured on 14.02.2018 but the OPs did not pay the maturity amount.  The complainants deposited the documents and demanded the amount but the OPs did not care. The complainants also invested a sum of Rs. 6438 at a time for monthly return to the OP no 2 through the OP no1 on 02.01.2014 being certificate no. TA01837511 and the date of maturity was 02.072016. But the Op did not pay the said amount. Also the complainants deposited another amount of Rs. 12,875 for some monthly gain on 15.02.2014 vide certificate No. TA02435210 which also got maturity on 15.08.2016.  The complainants again and again went to the office of the OP No 1 for return of the money but they 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. 1,00,000/- + Rs, 6,438 and Rs. 12,875/- with 10% interest in all the above investment, from the date of respective investment and till full satisfaction thereof  and other reliefs. 

Summons were issued upon both the Opposite Parties. The OP no. 2 appeared and took part in argument, but the OP no 1 did not contest the case. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP no. 1.

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 .

Seen the three  certificates produced by the complainants, issued by the Director of the OP no. 2 CS Jolly and we are satisfied that the case of the complaints is amply proved thereby.

          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 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/156 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no.2 and ex parte against the OP No.1. 

          Both the Opposite Parties are directed to  return Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs, 6,438 and Rs. 12,875/- with 10 % interest in all the above investment, from the date of respective investment till full satisfaction thereof, failing which the complainants 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.