SMT. CHANDRIMA CHAKRABORTY, MEMBER.

 Facts of the complaint case, in short is that having got allured by the attractive interest  the complainant invested some amount with the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1 in the     following manner :

Customer ID No.                    Amount of Deposit.            Date of maturity.

1 TA00967071 dt. 27.07.2013,   10,000/-                          05.03.2027.

2 TA01168313 dt 27.07.2013      10,000/-                         05.01.2027

3 TA00967075 dt 27.07.2013      20,000/-                         05.07.2025

4 TA00967068 dt 27.07.2013      30,000/-                         06.10.2016

5 TCC0411577/007108               10,400/-                        

6. TCC0411581/004232                2080/-

           On completion of the tenure the complainant repeatedly demanded the maturity value from the Ops and submitted all the relevant papers, but the Ops did not pay the same and avoided the payment.

Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 82,480/- as deposited amount and other reliefs.                                    

 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 complainant and the copy of money receipt/certificate 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/259 of 2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

          Both the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay a sum return Rs.82,480/- to the complainant 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. 1000/- towards litigation cost 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.