SMT. CHANDRIMA CHAKRABORTY, MEMBER,
Gist of the complaint case is that the complainant invested Rs. 40000/- on 11.07.2013 TA01068725. The date of maturity of the said deposit was 01.05.2018. and the maturity amount was Rs. 40,000/-. But on the date of maturity the OPs did not return the maturity amount although the complainant deposited allthe relevant documents and made repeated requests for the payment.
Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for a direction upon the OP to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with further 10% interest thereon from the date of maturity 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 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 are taken up together for discussion and decision for sake of convenience .
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and the copy of the money receipt dated 11.07.2015 produced by the complainant, issued by the Co. and find that the particulars mentioned in the said receipt tally with the particulars given in the complaint. None of the Ops turned up to counter the claim of the complainant.
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.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That CC/ 322 of 2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP.
Both the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay a sum return Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ Rs. 10% from the date of maturity till full realization of the awarded amount, within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant 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.
