Sukula Majhi filed a consumer case on 28 Dec 2018 against The Branch manger Semrudha Jeevan Foods India Ltd., in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/41/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Mar 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No.41/ 2017. Date. 2 . 1 . 2019
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President.
Sri GadadharaSahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, Member.
Sri Sukula Majhi, S/O: G. Majhi, Vill: Milikapanga, Po:Tembaguda,Dist:Rayagada, 765 025 (Odisha) …. Complainant.
Versus.
1.TheBramch Manager, SamrudhaJeevan Feeds India Ltd., Near unarighaiChhak, Petrol pump front, At/Po: Padmapur, Dist:Rayagada.
2. Regd. Office, Sl. No. D/1, 13/5, Sambhaji Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune- 411 043.
3.Head office, Lank mark, F.P. 576/2B, 3rd. floor, Oppo Faregussan college, Sivaji Nagar, Pune- 411005. .…..Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Sri Biraja Patra, Advocate.
For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.
JUDGEMENT
The curx of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment of maturity amount for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
Upon Notice,the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 11 adjournments has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps. Observing lapses of around 2 years for which the objectives of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant. Hence after hearing the counsel for the complainant set the case exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of natural justice as envisaged under section 13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte as the statutory period for filing of written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.
We therefore constrained to proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. Heard from the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
Findings.
From the documents filed by the complainant it reveals that the complainants had deposited amount in the above organization. In support of deposit of money in different dates the Complainant has filed copies of deposited receipts and certificate issued by the O.Ps for the period from 28.10.2010 to 28.09.2015 @ Rs. 600.00 per month for 60 installments total Rs.36,000.00 which are marked as Annexures. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had paid amounts to the OPs. After ,maturity date 27.10.2015 the O.P. had issued cheque No. 085764 Dt.1.5.2016 an amount of Rs.54,874/- in favour of the complainant but the said cheque was bounced as there was no fund in the account No.32617611720.
There after the complainant had made several request to the O.P. repay the said maturity amount, but the opposite parties kept silent. Moreover, there is no denial by the opposite parties regarding the deposits made by the complainants. As per the document it is clear that the opposite parties collected so much amount not only from the complainant but also from the public and these acts of the opposite parties clearly shows their attitude and deficiency in service, hence, the opposite parties have to refunded maturity amounts to the complainant.
The complainants with a hope invested amount with the opposite parties, but because of the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant deprived of to get back his matured amounts and they have moved around the offices of the opposite parties and because of the acts of the opposite parties, they have suffered financially and mentally.
A preliminary study of the nature of the complaint reveals that it is a case of breach of contract. As per the contract between the parties, the O.Ps in the instant case promised to return the deposited amount to the complainant with a specified rate of interest when the account matured, when they have failed to fulfill their obligations it tends to breach of contract. Therefore a breach of contract it self may result in deficiency in service. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for a special remedy for such grievances and for awarding compensation to the aggrieved persons. Their callousness in fulfilling their deficiency in service to the complainant undoubtedly tells of their deficiency in service to the complainant.
Any person who provides financial service of the kind in question is liable to compensate or refund the amount received by it in terms of the agreement or the contract as he is guilty of unfair trade practice as well as Deficiency in service.
In terms of Section-14 of the C.P.Act, 1986 the O.P. is liable to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him on account of its negligence or on account of unfair trade practice.
To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In resultant, the complaint stands allowed in part, on exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps ordered to pay the maturity amount a sum of Rs.54,874/- with interest @ Rs.9 % interest per annum from Date. 1.5.2016 till realization besides to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The above order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Pronounced in the open Forum today on this 2nd. .day of , January., 2019 .
Member Member. President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.