West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/67/2018

Mr. Rakesh 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

       Being depressed at non-receipt of the whole amount including the interest from the OP, the complainant has lodged this complaint for redressal u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

       The complaint may be epitomized so that the complainant i.e. the depositor of the OP Non-Banking Financial Company (N.B.F.C.) having A/c No. 54114200229 had deposited Rs.1,18,000/- for 59 months w.e.f. 13.1.2012 to 21.11.2016 @ Rs.2,000/- per month. Out of 60 installments he had deposited for 59 installments in the recurring terms deposit with the OP N.B.F.C. But, the OP has declined to pay to him the principal amount with interest in January, 2017 after period of maturity, though, the claim form as per rule of the said complainant has been submitted to the OP. But no receipt of the same has been issued. The complainant prays for the whole principal amount with an interest 10.2% p.a. and also a compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in his averment.

 

            The OP in his written version has denied all the allegations rather charged the depositor with his breach of trust. He has also told that the litigation pending with S.E.B.I. and Apex Court of the country against the OP Group of Companies has barred the OP to make any payment. Under the circumstances the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP craves leave of this Forum.

 

On argument with the evidences the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has tried to prove the complainant a bona fide consumer to the OP and urged for quick decision of this Forum praying for instruction to the OP for making payment of the whole amount as prayed for in the complaint. The Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP also in this written argument has stated their temporary incapability of making payment immediately for reasons as stated in their written version earlier. He has also admitted to make payment immediately subject to the decision of the litigation pending with the S.E.B.I. and Apex Court of the country. 

 

Points for discussion

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

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

            We have looked into the complaint, the written version of the OP and evidences filed by the parties minutely. All these reveal that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of the OP and also no denial of the fact about lack in responsibility in discharging his duty on the part of the OP and here lies the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

            that the OPs are directed to make payment of the principal amount deposited with his organization in 59 installments with compound interest w.e.f. 13.1.2012 till the date of full and final payment @ 9% p.a. within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further an interest @ 10% p.a. will be incurred on the whole amount of the principal amount and the interest accrued thereon up to the last date of payment according to this order. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. All parties by the OP are to be made through this forum.

             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.