West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/65/2018

Mr. Ankit Gupta, S/O- Late Kailash Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Franchisee Guardian, Sahara India Pariwar, Hili Franchisee Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Santanu Dey

17 Jan 2019

ORDER

Part payment keeping due after the maturity period by the OP has obliged the complainant to lodge this complaint for redressal u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

 

            The complaint may be epitomized in the following that the depositor herein the complainant was assured to pay the deposited amount with interest after maturity of the term deposit with the OP Non-Banking Financial Company (N.B.F.C.). But, unfortunately in 2 installments Rs.2,20,000/- has been paid but the remaining amount with interest has still remained unpaid. The complainant claims in his averment that this is clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He has claimed the remaining due amount with 10.2% interest and a compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

            The OP in his averment has denied all the charges and any deficiency in service on their part. It has been asserted that due to some litigation pending with S.E.B.I. and Apex Court regarding the financial transaction of the OP Group the payment has remained stopped and the OP craves leave of this Forum and prays for dismissal of the instant case.

 

            On argument the complainant in writing with evidence has tried to prove himself as a consumer within the purview of Sec.2 of the CP Act, 1986 and has justified the instant case for redressal under this Forum. The OP in his written argument has stated what has already been stated in their written argument. On argument hearing the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP has admitted that his client is trying hard to make all the dues clear within a short while.

 

 

Points for discussion

1. Is the complainant a consumer within a purview of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

 

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

            The evidences filed by the complainant (kept in the record) proves that he had deposited Rs.3,65,000/- within a period from 1.9.2016 to 31.8.2017 and he was eligible for receiving the whole amount with interest as per the terms & conditions of the OP. On 1.9.2017 but the OP has failed to keep up his terms & conditions in due time and part payment has been made.  This proves that the complainant is the bona fide depositor of the OP and so he is a consumer within the purview of the C.P. Act. But, inability of the OP to observe the terms & conditions for any reason must not be shouldered by the depositor herein the complainant. So, it is clear that there is enough deficiency in service on the part of OP. The reason for inability of payment what has been stated by the OP in their written version and written argument has never been brought to the knowledge of the complainant earlier than lodging this complaint. We are of the opinion that the OP has tried to hush something from his bona fide depositor. This is rather “unfair trade practice. The complainant is eligible to get return of his valid principal amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

            that the OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,45,000/-, the principal amount deposited by the complainant and the interest of Rs.4,949/- up to 31.8.2017 and also compound interest @ 9% p.a. up to the date of final payment accrued on the total amount of Rs.1,45,000/- + Rs.4,949/- i.e. Rs.1,49,940/- within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. will be incurred on the whole amount of the dues to be made till the date of payment. Further, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is to be paid as litigation cost, but no other cost is allowed.

            The instant case be and the same succeed on contest.

 

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost immediately to the parties concerned.