Date of Filing: 23.07.2013.                                                            Date of Final Order: 16.01.2014

            The case of the Complainant Sri Bidyut Kumar Dutta aged about 61 years purchased 5 Nos. M.I.S. Policies of Rs. 50,000/- on 24-03-2012 vide 1. Certificate No. 2125100000806, Code No. APNTC – 148524, Debit Card No. 270155 with due date 04-10-2013, 2. Certificate No. 2224100020442, of Rs. 2,00,000/- Code No. APNTC – 835980 Debit Card No. 270162 with due date 06-06-2014, 3. Certificate No. 2218100000868, of Rs. 45,000/- Code No. APNTC – 838402 Debit Card No. 270157 with due date 10-06-2014, 4. Certificate No. 2259100003999, of Rs. 1,00,000/- Code No. APNTC – 852705 Debit Card No. 270158 with due date 10-08-2014, 5. Certificate No. 2205100005617 of Rs. 50,000/- Code No. APNTb – 274574 Debit Card No. 274574 with due date 21-09-2014 in terms of interest of Rs. 4,500/- Rs.18,000/-, Rs.4,050/-, Rs.9,000/- and Rs. 4,500/- respectively per month from Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. The Chief Managing Director, Royal International Trading, Regd. Office at Newtown, Dinhata Road, P.O. & Dist.- Cooch Behar through the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Sri. Jotish Sutradhar Agent of the Opposite Party No.1 for a period of seven months and the 5^th No. for six months. (Annexure – A – Xerox Copy of Certificates and customer Debit Card issued by Opposite Party No. 1).

         Thereafter, the Complainant received monthly interest up to March, 2013 and no further. They informed such non-payment of interest to the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Sri Jotish Sutradhar, agent of Royal International Trading and Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. the Chief Managing Director (CMD) of Royal International Trading at Cooch Behar, which assured  to pay-off the said interest within March, 2013 (Annexure – B – Xerox Copy of Monthly Interest statements). After expiry of the assured period, of March, they went to the office of the Opposite Party No. 1 several times for receiving the monthly interest but in vain resulting to suffering, injury & irreparable loss due to negligence of the Opposite Parties. The cause of action arose in March 2013 and thereafter till date of filing of the instant Complaint.

          The Complainant files the Complaint alleging against the two Opposite Parties for non-payment of the amount as “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practice” by the Opposite Parties.

            The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the Opposite Parties as under.

1. To pay monthly interest Rs. 1,60,200/- to the Complainant for April to July, 2013.
2. To return the policy amount  Rs. 4,45,000/- to the Complainant.
3. To pay Rs. 50,000/-as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment.
4. To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
5. To pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceedings and other reliefs entitled as per law & equity.

            The Complaint has been filed on 23-07-2013 under  signature of Bidyut Kumar Dutta on verification and on Notarial Affidavit enclosing Xerox Copy of (1) Five acknowledgements in the name of Bidyut Kumar Dutta (Exhibit 1-5)  (2) Five customer Debit Cards (Exhibit 6-10) and (3) Five statements as to receipt of interest dated 24-04-2013 to 31-03-2013 against the five certificates at the rate of interest as stated above marked as exhibit No. 11-16 respectively.          

            Fee Rs. 400/- paid by I.P.Os for making complaints.

            The Complaint filed through the Ld. Advocate Mr. Rabindra Dey and DF Case No. 74/2013 has been registered on 23-07-2013 on the aforesaid Complaint, which after admission hearing, the Opposite Parties were show caused  by a Notice as to why the prayer shall not be granted  fixing 13-08-2013 for S/R and appearance.

            It appears from record that on 31-07-2013 someone under signature of round seal of Royal International Trading has received two copies of notice. Therefore, it can be said that the notice served through Forum’s Process Server Sri Sashi Baydh. On 13-08-2013 Ld. Advocate Sri Shyamalesh Bikash Ghosh of the Opposite Parties appeared and taken time for filing W/V but none appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 despite receiving the notice also no step was taken and the ex-parte was fixed against the Opposite Party No. 2. It also appears that the agent of the Opposite Party No. 1 took several times to file W/V but ultimately failed and as such, the next date was fixed for filing evidence on affidavit by the complainant. The documents (Annexure originals) were marked exhibits 1 to 15 and the Complaint was marked as Exhibit – 1. The originals returned to the complainant Sri Bidyut Kumar Dutta on 11-11-2013 on identification of the Ld. Advocate Sri Rabindra Dey. The evidence on affidavit was filed by the Agent of the Complainant on 16-12-2013 and ex-parte argument heard on 24-12-2013.          

            On perusal of the Evidence and documents marked exhibits it appears to us that the evidence on affidavit is almost identical to the Complaint on affidavit, but distinct in feature of the style/format used so also the “Exhibits” are the “Acknowledgements” & SL Nos. as it appears whereas it were enclosed as “Annexure” and stated as Certificate & Policy No. etc.

            May whatever it be, we are of the view that the  Complainant deposited  Rs. 4,45,000/-on the stated dates to Royal International Trading under acknowledgements (Exhibits 1 to 5) on the terms and conditions mentioned therein so also we have reason to believe that the Customer Debit Cards (Exhibits 6 to 10) were issued by the aforesaid Opposite Parties / trading to the Complainant as in the  name of the Trading, address etc. with Seal / Logo and though  the exhibits 12 to 15  do not bear such identity but can be believed to have been issued by the Opposite Parties.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a “Consumer” in terms of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Is the Royal International Trading has any deficiency in service by not returning the assured amount with interest by adopting Unfair Trade Practice?
3. Is the Complainant proved the allegations against the Opposite Parties in respect of compensation claimed?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any compensation and relief as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

          We perused the documents made available on record and heard the argument in Ex-Parte.

Point No. 1.

            In the case in hand, the Complainants purchased five Nos. M.I.S. Policies from the Opposite Party No. i.e. Royal International Trading through Opposite Party No. 2 against deposit of Rs. 50,000/- on 24-03-2012 vide 1. Certificate No. 2125100000806, Code No. APNTC – 148524, Debit Card No. 270155 with due date 04-10-2013, 2. Certificate No. 2224100020442, of Rs. 2,00,000/- Code No. APNTC – 835980 Debit Card No. 270162 with due date 06-06-2014, 3. Certificate No. 2218100000868, of Rs. 45,000/- Code No. APNTC – 838402 Debit Card No. 270157 with due date 10-06-2014, 4. Certificate No. 2259100003999, of Rs.1,00,000/- Code No. APNTC – 852705 Debit Card No. 270158 with due date 10-08-2014, 5. Certificate No. 2205100005617of Rs. 50,000/- Code No. APNTb – 274574 Debit Card No. 274574 with due date 21-09-2014. The documents made available on record it make clear that the Opposite Party No. 1 intervened the matter for initiation of the Policy. Thus, in view of the status of the Complainants and the relationship with the Opposite Parties as came to be existed; we are of the clear opinion that the Complainant is a Consumer for this proceeding as mandated by the provision laid down in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 2 & 3              

              Now, the above points are taken up together for consideration.

        On perusal the documents in record it appear that the Opposite Party No. 1  issued Customer Debit Card in favour of the Complainant marked as Exbt.No.6 to 10 and also from Exhibit No. 11 to 15 it appears that the Complainant received interest up to March 2013 against the four MIS policies at the rate Rs.4,500/-, Rs.18,000/-, Rs. 4,050/-, Rs.9,000/- respectively and no interest received against the policy being No.2205100005617. Thereafter, the Opposite Party stopped payment of interest. Complainant knocked the door of the Opposite Party for payment of Interest but all are in vain but there is no single scrap of papers to show that the Complainants made contact with the Opposite Party but from the unchallenged evidence and also from the conduct of the opposite party we are in belief beyond any manner of doubt that the complainant deposited the huge amount to the Opposite Party company in connection of the five Nos. MIS Policies/Certificates issued by the Opposite Party No. 1 and not get the return as per his desire.

            In this present case, the Opposite Parties did not turn up despite receiving the Notice and for which this proceeding heard in ex-parte. It is fact that when the mass people very much concerned about the Sarada Massacre and the Complainant who deposited amount in Money Marketing Agency are intending to withdraw the amount willfully from the Opposite Party company to save their hard earned money, even before maturity period also the Opposite Party to save their skin continuously given false assurance without returning the money definitely should be termed as deficiency in service and by adopting unfair trade practice the Opposite Party deprived the Complainant to get his deposited amount of Rs.4,45,000/- and interest.

          It is pertinent to mention that in the case in hand the agent of the Opposite Party No. 1 took several dates for filing W/V also willfully violated the order of this Forum for which this opposite party must be penalized and from their avoiding tendency to contest the case it is crystal clear that they have no denial of the allegation leveled against them by the Complainant and thus the fact that disputed not denied.

          In the light of foregoing discussions and materials on record, we are in considered opinion that the Complainant as a bonafide Consumer deprived from the proper service as had to render by the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant is entitled to relief / reliefs. The complainant in a view to get more money within a short period deposited the huge amount systematically to the opposite parties (not in a one month) knowing fully well the fate of the deposited amount when a lot of litigation is going on in connection with SARADA, a money marketing agency and for which he can not entitled to get any compensation as he himself invited his misery and hardship.

            Thus, the Complaint succeeds on merit by unchallenged testimonies.

Hence,

          ORDERED,

                      That the Complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte but in part.

           The Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and/or severally to the Complainant the deposited amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- against the five MIS Policies/ Certificates issued by the Opposite party No. 1 within 45 days.  The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- to the Complainant as litigation cost also directed to  pay at the rate of 9 percent cumulative interest towards the deposited amount of Rs.4,45,000/- since the filing  of this complaint. The Opposite Party shall comply with the order within the time framed, in default, the Opposite Parties have to pay  Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay jointly and/or severally and the amount accumulated if any shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

           A plain copy of this order be made available and be sent to each of the parties free of cost by registered post with A/D forthwith as per rules.              

Dictated and corrected by me

                                                              Member                                                                                                

                                               District Consumer Disputes                                                      

                                            Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar     

                  Member,                                                                        Member,                                                            

    District Consumer Disputes                                          District Consume Disputes                                                 

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                   Redressal   Forum, Cooch Behar.