For the complainant: Shri A.K.Padhi & Associates.
For the O.Ps. : Not appeared.
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Patra,President
The crux of the case is that the complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against aforementioned Opposite Parties for non- payment of maturity amount deposited with the Ops under Golden A Double Scheme for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances.
Upon Notice, the O.Ps. neither appeared before the Commission nor filed their written version in spite of several adjournments granted by this Commission. It found that notice was properly served to the Ops vide Postal Consignment No.RO124815144IN to OP No.1 on 18.04.2023, Consignment No.RO124815135IN dt.17.04.2023 to O.P. No.2 & Consignment No.RO124815250IN dt.15.04.2023 to OP No.3, as such the case heard from the Complainant ex-parte in absence of the Opposite Parties. We therefore proceeded to dispose of the case, on its merit.
Perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant and other materials available on record. From the documents filed by the complainant it reveals that, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,900/- under Golden A Double scheme of the Opposite Parties vide Certificate No.465000052850& dt.30.01.2016 for a period of 64 months which got maturity on 30.06.2021 and the maturity value is Rs.11,800/- .In support of deposit the Complainant has filed copy of Certificate.
It is submitted that , after the due date of maturity the complainant approached to the Opposite Party on 6.3.2021 and produced the original receipt with a request to disburse his maturity benefit but the OP 3 assured him falsely that the said amount is again deposited automatically and it need some time to be released. On 6.9.2021 the complainant again visited the office of the Op 3 but get release of his deposited amount but no avail. The request for several times for payment of maturity amount did not listen and refused to make payment. Complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and proved the contention of complaint petition.
Here the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .The opposite party have neither disputed nor produce any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian evidence Act. Law is well settled that every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability. Where the O.p has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).
We relied upon the judgment reported in CCC 2005 page No. 192 (SS) where the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Maharashtra observed “ Consumer Protection Act,1986- Section 2(1)(O)- service-Co-operative society-service rendered by a Credit Society in accepting deposits from the investors falls within definition of service in Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act,1986.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case we deem that the retention of deposited amount by the Opposite Party for such a long time amounted to deficiency in service as defined U/S Sec.2(11)(g) of C.P.Act,‘ Deficiency in Service means “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. And includes (i) any action negligence of omission or commission by such person which cause loss or injury to the consumer (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.
This Commission found the act of withholding payment by the Opposite Party is not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the complainant deserves to be compensated. In our view the interest of justice would met if this Commission award accrued interest from the date of maturity till its realization. In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and referring citations we allow the above complaint petition in part.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER
In result the complaint petition is allowed in part against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.11,800/- which got matured on 30.06.2021 with interest @ Rs.9 % per annum from the date of maturity till realization.
Since we award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the Opposite Party after the due date, no further compensation is awarded inter alia to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
The Opposite Party is ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Ops are liable to pay 18% interest per annum over the said awarded amount till its realization. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off.
Pronounced in open Commission today on this 6th day of July 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
