For the Complainant                       - Mr Dulal Chandra Sarkar,  Advocate

For the OPs                                       -  Mr. Kingshuk Karmakar, Advocate

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 short; is that she invested Rs.400/- per month with the OP-1 against A/c No. 16804200672 under Sahara M. Benefit Scheme. On account of urgent need of money, complainant approached the OP-1 to withdraw the pre-matured principal amount of Rs.24,000/- but the OP-1 failed and neglected to refund such amount. Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued legal notice dated 16.07.2018 to the OP-1 requesting them to release the pre-matured amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice failing which she has no other alternative but to institute legal proceeding in the appropriate Forum. Such legal notice was unattended. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Having no other alternative, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint directing the OPs to refund pre-matured amount against A/c No. 16804200672 under Sahara M. Benefit Scheme along with interest  at the rate of 12  percent P.A., compensation and litigation cost.

The OPs resisted the complaint by filing W/V where in they have denied all the material allegations contained in the consumer complaint. The specific case of the OPs is that the transaction between the parties is a commercial/financial transaction and the complainant may ventilate her grievance before the competent Civil Court having territorial jurisdiction. The complainant never produced original certificate and KYC documents to the OP-1 for disbursement of pre-matured amount. Complainant failed and neglected to comply the terms and conditions stipulated in the application form of Sahara M. Benefit Scheme and the OPs have no obligation to refund the pre-matured amount to the complainant due to non furnishing of original documents and KYC. There is no deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

Points for determination

1. Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
2. Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 Decision with Reasons

Point Nos.1 to 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

Complainant Smt Asima Santra files her evidence by way of affidavit supporting allegations made in the complaint. The OPs did not file any E/Chief in support of their case.

            On perusal of the application being No. 3110167373318 and statement of accounts, it appears that the complainant deposited Rs.400/- per month to the OP-1 against Sahara M. Benefit Scheme. 60 EMIs were deposited till 20.12.2016. We have it from the consumer complaint that on account of serious illness of the complainant, she approached the OP-1 to release the pre-matured amount of Sahara M. Benefit Scheme but her approach was turned down. Photocopy of legal notice dated 16.07.2018 goes to show that complainant issued legal notice directing the OP-1 to release the pre-matured amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice but such notice was unattended. The pre-matured amount of Rs.24,000/- is still lying with the OP-1. The OPs are fully aware that they are liable to pay pre-matured amount of Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant but they failed to credit such amount to the Bank A/c of the complainant. We think that the activities and acts on the part of the OPs constitute a sheer deficiency in service. The OPs are  holding public money for their own gain and expansion of business and  also harassing the public who invested their hard earned money relying on the assurance of the OPs. It indicates that the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice, and in fact we hold that the OPs withhold  the pre-matured amount which no doubt  adopted  deceitful manner of trade and by that act complainant did not get back the pre-matured amount. The OPs are reluctant to refund the pre-matured amount to the complainant.

            Based on the above discussion coupled with evidence and documents on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            In the result, the case merit succeeds in part.

Hence,

Ordered

 That the consumer case be and the same is allowed on contest against  the OPs with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only .

The OPs are jointly and severally  directed to refund the pre-matured  amount of Rs.24,000/-  (Rupees twenty-four thousand) only against Sahara M. Benefit Scheme and shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation to  the complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony apart from litigation cost within 60 days from the date of  the order.

OPs are directed to comply the order strictly within the specified period, in default, liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution under the provision of Sections 25 & 27 of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.