The complainants Smt. Archana Acharjee and her daughter Smt. Oly Acharjee have filed the present case U/S 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 with a prayer for issuing direction upon the opposite Parties to return back the Policy Amount with interest also cost and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the Complaint.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainants opened a Daily Savings Scheme on 25.05.2012 for the period of one year with the Opposite Party Company through its Branch Manager, Cooch Behar Branch. At the time of opening the said account the Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that they will render proper service to the Complainants. The Complainants deposited Rs. 3460/- and Rs. 4980/- respectively to the Opposite Party No. 3 up to 29.12.2012 and the Opposite Party No. 3 issued money receipts in favour of the Complainants containing the name of the Office of the opposite Party No.1 & 2. On 05.03.2013 the Complainants went to the office of the opposite party, Cooch Behar Branch for depositing premium but they came to know that the said office has been permanently closed in the month of February, 2013 then Complainants contacted with the O.P. No. 3 for return back the deposited amount with interest and also informed the matter to the Corporate Office. Even after adopting all efforts the Complainants did not get the deposited amount from the end of the Opposite Party. The Complainants several times made contact with the Opposite Party No. 3 but that too remained unheeded. By not getting the deposited amount with interest the Complainants suffered a lot. Finding no other alternative the Complainant compelled to file the present case alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties seeking reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the Complainant.
None appear on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 despite receiving the notice the name of the O.P. No.2 is expunged vide Order No.17 dated 03.11.2014 only the O.P. No.3 is contested the case and the case proceeded with Ex-parte against O.P. No.1.
The O.P. No. 3 after his/her appearance by filing Written Version contested the case contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law and has no cause of action to file the case against this O.P. and thus liable to be dismissed. This O.P. contended that she is a mere housewife and had/has no connection with the alleged company and never had she collected any amount from the Complainants. The further contention of the O.P. No. 3 is that the Complainant has failed to file any documents to show that this O.P. has any involvement with the said Company or she is the Branch Manager. Putting all this, the O.P.No. 3 concluded her version praying for dismissal of the case with cost.
It is pertinent to mention that the O.P. No.3 after filing written version did not appear before this Forum for which this case proceeded with Ex-parte also against the O.P. No.3.
The Complainant has filed Evidence on affidavit with original documents also Written Argument.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the Complainants Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the Ex-parte argument of the agent of the Complainant in full.
Perused the documents marked as Annexure ‘A’, series and evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant.
Point No. 1 & 2.
The Complainants procured receipts, certificates against investment in Daily Savings Scheme with the Opposite Parties. The Cooch Behar Branch issued money receipts by receiving the certain amount from the complainants with assurance to return the same with huge interest thus the relation between the complainant and the opposite parties so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainants are the Consumers of the Opposite Parties.
All the opposite parties in the present case are the resident of this district and/or have their branch office in this district also the complaint value of this case is Rs. 98,440/- i.e. far less than Rs. 20,00,000/- for which there is no dispute in the point of territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Undisputedly the Complainants deposited a certain amount to the Opposite Party No. 1 through the Opposite Party No. 3 as stated by the Complainant in the complaint petition and Evidence on affidavit. The Cooch Behar Branch issued Pass Book containing the name of the Regd. Office and Corporate Office with seal of the Branch office and signature of officials in favour of the Complainants from which it is crystal clear that what amount they had deposited to the branch Office of the Opposite Party no. 1.
Now, the main contention of the Complainants is that they deposited total Rs.8,440/- to the Opposite party but after maturity period they did not get the return as per the terms & conditions of the said deposits.
Evidently, the Complainant deposited the previously mentioned amount to the Opposite Party Company. They deposited the amount obviously through an Agent. The Complainants claimed that The Branch Manager namely Smt. Nupur Guha collected the money from them but there is no single scrap of paper to show that Smt. Guha was the Branch Manager of the O.P. Company or she has/had any nexus with the said Company. It appears on scrutiny of record that neither Complainants nor their Advocate/Agents are sincere in bringing the truth supported by relied on documents to proof the allegation against the O.P. No. 3.
It is the case of the O.P. No. 3 that she never joined in the business of the Opposite party Company and has/had any connection with them. She is a mere housewife and no deficiency in service thus arises and for this the present proceeding deserves to be dismissed.
It is pertinent point to mention that despite receiving the notice from this Forum the O.P. No. 1 did not appear before this Forum to contest the case that proves that the O.P. No. 1 has nothing to say against the allegation of the Complainant. Moreover, it is crystal clear from the documents made available in the record that truly the Complainants deposited Rs. 8,440/- to the Opposite Party and they did not get the return from the end of the Opposite Party thus the deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the Opposite Party No. 1 and the present case succeeds by unchallenged testimonies against the Opposite Party No. 1.
As it is already proved that the Complainants are the Consumers and the Opposite Party No. 1 is guilty of deficiency in service by adopting the arm of unfair trade practice and when the claim of the Complainants is genuine, we decide the case in favour of the Complainants without any hesitation and allowed reasonable relief as per law, equity and gravity of the case.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint case is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party Nos. 1but in part with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the complainants also dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 3.
The Opposite Party shall pay the Complainants of Rs. 8,440/-the total investment amount of the Complainants with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each) within 45 days failure of which the Opposite Parties jointly and/or severally shall pay Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the representative complainant by hand/Registered post free of cost A/D and also to the opposite party No. 1 and 3 forthwith as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member, President,
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
Member, Member,
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar.
