SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT.

         Facts of the complaint case in short is that being allured by the attractive interest offered by the Ops,  on 26.02.2013 the complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1 vide Certificate No. TA00000099 which was returnable on 26.08.2018.  The complainant also invested Rs. 1,70,000/- on 15.03.2013 being Certificate No.TA00063525, returnable on 15.09.2018, He also invested a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 22.03.2013, vide Certificate No. TA00063510 which was returnable on 22.09.2018. In all the cases, the maturity amount was the same. After the respective date of maturity, the complainant deposited all relevant papers and claimed the maturity amount, but the Ops did not pay the same.

          Hence, the complainants have filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs 5,20,000/- in total as maturity amount  and further interest from the date of deposit in all the three cases till full realization of the said 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 complainants 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 controverted 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/269 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.5,20,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of maturity till full realization of the awarded amount, with further Rs. 2000/- as 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.