Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and delivered in open Commission in 4 pages 2 separate sheet of paper.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite PartyNo.2&3isaLimited Company, mainly engaged in dealing withthe business of Retail Outlets/Stores for Home Appliances Consumable Products and many others including acceptance of Fixed Deposits in accordance with their Finance Schemes. The OppositePartyNo.1 is a Company engaged in carrying the business of operation and managing Retail Outlets/Stores in different cities.

2. The Complainant is a Senior Citizen Lady had invested Rs.1,00,000.00 on 06.01.2020 before the Op No(s).2 & 3 against which they issued a Fixed Deposit Receipt No.001010014177, Customer Id: PU21578under Cumulative Scheme for the period of 3Years with aMaturity value of Rs.1,35,873.00 dated: 06.01.2023.

3. After maturity of the said Fixed Deposit, the Complainant severally demanded the maturity value of Rs.1,35,873.00 from the Op No.2&3 but, till date she has not received any payment in spite of several reminders, requests, persuasions and ultimately surprised to see that the Op No.2 & 3 closed their branch, instead of which Op No.1 is in operational in the said branch at Haldia. Lastly, on 26.06.2023 the Complainant’sAdvocate made a demand of Rs.1,35,873.00 to the Op No.2 & 3, within 15 days from the receipt of this notice but, the said Registered Post was returned back from the Op No.2 with a postal remark ‘Absent’ and another notice was duly received by the Op No.3 on 01.07.2023.

4. Therefore, the Complainant moved before this Commission.

5. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 01.07.2023.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To pay the Fixed Deposit Maturity Claim of Rs.1,65,873.00 by the Ops with Interest from the date of maturity to final payment.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.20,000.00 towards harassment, mental pain and agony.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

6. Notices were duly served upon the Opsbut,the Op No.2 & 3has preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them. The Op No.1 being represented by their Learned Advocate has contested the case by filing Written Version against the Complaint. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.1 in its’ Written Version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.Moreover, the Op No.1 is a separate legal entity which cannot be made parties to the Complaint, as they are not responsible for the day to day operations of Op No.2 & 3 and the Complaint contains no specific allegations against this OpNo.2 & 3 regarding how they are involved in the operation of the Company in question or how and on what basis it can be said that the Unfair Trade Practice or Deficiency of Service was committed by the Company.

7. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op No.2 & 3.

8. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

9. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant alongwith all papers and other documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops,as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted a list of documents containing the copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by the Op No.2 & 3,Advocate Notice, Postal Track Record and Returned Envelope etc. It is pertinent to mention that, from the materials on record this Commission has not found any document which speaks about the merger of Op No.2 & 3with the Op No.1 Company by taking all Assets & Liabilities. Therefore, Op No.1 can’t be held liable for such claims of the complainant.

5. From the above submitted documents, it is carefully observed that the Op No.2 & 3isnot only an offender for non-payment of post maturity Fixed Deposit Value to a Senior Lady Citizen but,tremendously harassed with keeping herself in mental pain and agony for a long timeby non-responding and closing the Haldia Branch office without prior intimation to her.

6. Therefore, it clearly transpire, thatthere are not only Elements of Negligence, Unfair Trade Practice and Gross Deficiency in Servicebut also forced the Complainant to suffer a severe economic loss, harassment, mental pain and agony by the whimsical and illegal act of the Op No.2 & 3.

7. In view of the above unchallenged evidence adduced by the Complainant, it is clearly established that the Complainant is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (An Act to promote, protect and enforce the Rights of the Consumers) and there areElement of Negligence,Gross Deficiency inService and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 according to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

8. Accordingly,both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

1.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is        

O R D E R E D

That the CC-70 of 2023 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Op No.2 & 3 and dismissed against Op No.1.

1. The Op No.2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are hereby directed to pay the Fixed Deposit Maturity Claim of the Complainant  amounting to Rs.1,35,873.00 alongwith simple Interest @ 9% per annum for necessary settlement on the said amount from the date of this order till payment, Rs.10,000.00as Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costswithin 45 days from the date of this order in default the Complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of costs. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.