FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The case of the complainant, in brief; is that she invested Rs.  8,69,800/- to the OP-3 who transferred such investment in the name of the OP-2. OP-2 issued  eight certificate bearing Nos. 562010146823, 562010146876, 562018849075, 562014074689, 562014074687, 562014074688, 562003955002 & 562003955669  dated 04.06.2012, 06.06.2012, 08.06.2012, 31.07.2012 and  07.09.2012 respectively.  The maturity date of those certificates is June, 2018 and onwards and maturity value of those certificates are Rs. 18,52,674/-. On maturity the complainant requested the officials of the OPs to refund the matured amount but the officials suggested her again transfer the certificates to another scheme. Several written communication was made with the OP-1 but the OPs did not any reply. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the consumer complaint.

            OPs contested the complaint by filing WV wherein they have denied the allegations of the complainant. This specific case of the OPs is that despite several request the complainant did not furnish original certificate and KYC for proceeding and disbursement of payment. There is no unfair trade practice and/or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the CP Act and the relationship between complainant and the OPs are debitor and creditor.  Accordingly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In support of her case complainant Smt. Sanchita Bera filed her E/chief in the form of affidavit. Despite several opportunities, the OPs did not file any E/chief in support of their case.

            Upon perusal of the consumer complaint coupled with evidence of the complainant including photocopies of certificate bearing Nos. 562010146823, 562010146876, 562018849075, 562014074689, 562014074687, 562014074688, 562003955002 & 562003955669  dated 04.06.2012, 06.06.2012, 08.06.2012, 31.07.2012 and  07.09.2012, we find that the complainant invested Rs. 8,69,800/- to the OP-3 who in turn transferred such invested amount in favour of OP-2. The maturity date of those certificates have already been elapsed and the  maturity value  of those certificates is Rs. Rs. 18,52,674/-. Photocopy of letter dated  07.09.2018 and 03.10.2018, goes to show that on maturity the complainant requested the OPs for refund of maturity amount. Despite that the OPs did not refund the maturity amount of those certificates. The OPs are fully aware that they are liable to pay the matured amount of the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the complainant on its maturity. Complainant invested her hard earned money with the OPs. The OPs are deliberate to make illegal gains and to deprive the complainant  from her lawful right. Thus, the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice, and in fact withhold the maturity amount which no doubt adopted deceitful manner of trade. There is no evidence on the part of the OPs to rebut the evidence of the complainant.

            The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has invested Rs. 8,69,800/- to the OPs against Fixed Deposit Receipts with the hope to get Rs. 18,52,674/- as maturity amount. The act and conduct of the OPs is a clear case of deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested her money with the OPs, she would have invested the same elsewhere. The complainant cannot be wait indefinitely to get the matured amount.  The complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is settled principle of law that the compensation should be commensurate with loss of suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund the maturity amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts along with compensation and litigation cost.

            In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

            That the complaint case is allowed ex parte against the OPs with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only.

            OPs are directed to refund maturity amount of Rs. 18,52,674/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred  Seventy Four) only along with litigation cost to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.

            OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) only for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant within the stipulated period.

            Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution, if the OPs transgress to comply the order within the stipulated period.

A copy of the judgment be provided to the parties as mandated by the CP Act. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of this commission for perusal of the parties.