By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

     The case of the complainant in brief is that she invested Rs 4000/- per month as recurring deposit with the OP No.1 Co. from 22.06.2011 for a term of five years. She deposited the same amount through the OP No.3. Till 30.09.2013 the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,12,000/-.Thereafter as the OP no. 1 and 3 have closed their office at Haldia so, the complainant could not deposit any further amount. The recurring deposit was scheduled to be matured on 22.06.2016. In the meantime the OP no. 1 made over all their liability of the business to the OP no.2 since December, 2014. On 22.06.2016, the date of maturity of the recurring deposit the complainant demanded refund of Rs. 1,12,000/- from the  Opposite parties  but they avoided payment of the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint case with the prayers made therein.

          The OP No.3 contested the case by filing written version. He challenged the maintainability of the case on various points of law contending inter- alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form. The specific case of this Opposite party is that he has no nexus with the financial institution - OP nos. 1 and 2; he never motivated the complainant to invest with the OP Company. This OP admits that whenever he used to visit the office of the OP Company to deposit his father’s premiums, the complainant used to go to that office with him. The OP No.3 has claimed that he is in no way responsible for the loss of the complainant if any. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

          The OP Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the case.

 Points for consideration in the case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons.

            On perusal of the records it appears that OP Nos.1 and 2 did not appear to contest the case in spite of receipt of summons of this Forum. It is not disputed that complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- as recurring deposit till 30.092013 to the OP No. 1 through the OP no. 3.The complainant alleged that  the OP 1 and 2 have closed their office of Rista Fisheries and Infrastructure Ltd at Haldia for which the complainant did not deposit  the said recurring deposit any more.

             We have perused the copy of the documents filed by the complainant. From the documents it appears that complainant has paid instalment of Rs. 4000/-  on 29.08.12 and balance as on that date  Rs. 60,000/-, on 29.09.12 deposited Rs. 4000/-and balance was Rs. 64,000/-, on 30.10.12 Rs. 4000/- and balance as on that date Rs. 68,000/-. on.11.12 deposited Rs. 4000/-  and balance as on that date  Rs. 72,000/-, on 31.12.12 deposited Rs. 4000/- and balance as on that date  Rs. 76,000/-, on 30.01.13 deposited Rs. 4000/- and balance as on that date  Rs. 80,000/-, on 28.02.13 deposited Rs. 4000/- and balance as on that date  Rs. 84,000/- and this was instalment No. 21. The OP no. 3 admitted that complainant invested the money but denied his liability to return the matured value to the complainant. As the OP Nos. 1and 2 did not turn up to contest the case and from the documents it appears that the complainant paid money by instalments the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from 22.06.16 from the OPs No. 1 and 2.

                   The complainant fails to prove that the OP no. 3 had any liability to return the matured value of deposit.

                   Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs against the OP Nos. 1 and 2.             

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D    

          That the complaint case being No 177 of 2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP NO.1 and 2 and dismissed on contest against the OP No.3.

The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs 1,12,000/-  to the complainant  with 9% interest per annum from 22.06.16 till final payment . the OP nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost  to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, in default  the OPs 1 and 2 will be liable to pay Rs 100/- per diem as punitive charge which would be  payable to Consumer Welfare Fund.

          Let the copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.