- Poulomi Das,
30/60, Attapara Lane,
P.S. Baranagar, Kolkata-50. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Director,
Pailan Park Development Authority Ltd.,
127, Kankulia Road, Golpark,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 6 Dated 28-07-2014
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.5000/- per month for 12 months from 17.8.12 to July 2013 against Recurring Deposit Policy (hereinafter refer to R/D Policy) no.PD 01284147 which got matured on 16.8.13. The complainant also deposited sum of Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.5000/- per month for 12 months from 17.8.12 to 16.8.13 against R/D Policy no.PD 01284154 and complainant also deposited sum of Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.5000/- per month for 12 months from 17.8.12 to 16.8.13 against R/D Policy no.PD 01284158. Complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- @ Rs.1000/- per month from 22.7.11 to 15.7.13 vide R/D Policy no.PD 01013930. Complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- with o.p. no.2 and o.p. issued two certificates being nos. FD 05033328 dt.29.9.11 and DB 07284125 dt.21.9.12. Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- with o.p. When complainant approached to o.p. for matured amount o.p. did not pay any heed. Complainant sent a letter on 26.9.13 to o.p. which was received by them on 4.10.13. Several correspondences were made by complainant but in vain. Finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant application with prayer for refund of matured amount along with admissible interest, bonus and compensation and litigation cost.
Though the notice was properly served to o.p. but they did not appear before the Forum and hence, the case was heard ex parte against the o.p.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the petition of complaint, annexure affidavit filed by complainant. From the annexure we have observed that complainant submitted all the documents in support of her deposited money. Here it should be mentioned that as against R/D Policy No.PD 01013930 complainant deposited @ Rs.1000/- for the period from 22.7.11 to 15.7.11 i.e. for 25 months though the tenure of R/D policy was 60 months. Complainant approached the o.p. for the R/D policy to deposit her money but o.p. refused to receive the amount. Therefore, complainant could not pay the residual monthly installments to o.p. Being the unchallenged testimony there is nothing to disbelieve that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to o.p. The matured amount of her three R/D policy is Rs.2,04,750/- i.e. Rs.68,250/- each. So we find there is a deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of o.p. and as such, complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
