Order-9
Date-08/05/2018.
AUTHOR. RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER
The complainant stated.
That the Opposite Party no.1 is the Branch Officer of the Opposite Party no.2 which has represented to the complainant some time on 11th September 2012 to deposit money with them under their “Q Shop Plan – H” with the lucrative offer of maturity value.
Relying on such offer,the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.49100/- which was duly accepted and to that regard, certificates were issued by the Opposite Parties in three customer IDs dated 27/06/2012, 30/06/2012 and 13/09/2012 in the names of your petitioner and his spouse.
That by the aforesaid certificates, the Opposite Parties assured the complainant with the lucrative maturity benefit, however, the petitioner was also suggested to withdraw their money prematurely.
That after nearly five (5) years of those certificates were issued,the complainant sought to withdraw the above said amount and requested the Opposite Party - 1 besides intimating over phone and by letter dated 19/06/2017 requesting them to enable the claimant to withdraw the aforesaid entire amount. Said letter of request was sent through Speed Post of which Postal Track reveals the Item delivered. Copy of letter dated 19/06/2017 along with the Postal Track report are annexed with the complaint, collectively marked as ANNEXURE P – 2.
That since the Opposite Party No.1 failed to respond, the complainant / Petitioner further requested the Opposite Party - 1 by letter dated 21/08/2017 at its service center at Topsia for release of the certificate value in favour of the certificate holders. Copy of letter dated 21/08/2017 together with the postal receipt and track record are collectively annexed with marked with letter ANNEXURE P – 3.
That the denial on the part of the opposite parties causes damages, harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled to get compensation for such harassment.
That the Complainant prays for refund of certificate amounts of Rs.49100/- and to pay cost of Rs.25000/- for litigation and compensation for harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs.200, 000/-
Written Version
The OPs did not attend proceedings in spite of publication of notice through the Bengali daily ‘AajKaal’.
Points for Discussion
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OPs;
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant;
- Whether the complainant deserves relief.
Decision with Reasons
1)We have perused the documents including certificates against payments, evidence on affidavit by the complainant anda copy of judgement in SadanandSundar Rao Mahajon and others-vs-Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. It appears that the complainant Umesh Chandra Das deposited Rs.12, 800/- on 13.09.2012 under Plan H, vide certificate no.562010177280, and his spouse Shreeti Das deposited Rs.24, 200/- on 27.06.2012 under certificate no. 562014074269 and Rs.12, 100/- on 30.06.2012 under certificate no.562014071912 under the same Plan H. It also appears that the least LBP benefit would be 2.13 times of Global Advance (deposited amounts).
2) It remains the fact that the complainant lodged the case for redressal on behalf of himself and his wife. As it appears from the certificates that there is no mention of clause that the depositors cannot withdraw invested money prematurely. So it is supposed that a depositor can withdraw the invested money before maturity according to compelling situation. The R.B.I Guidelines also do not bar premature withdrawal.
3) When the investment was for about 5 years, the complainant found that OP-1’s office was closed yielding apprehension of the complainant. The complainant sent letter to OP-2 on 19.06.2017 expressing his claim to withdraw the money and stating that there is no office at all existing in the previous place of Kolkata (OP-1). The letter was sent by speed post, duly delivered, seeking also the correct address of Kolkata office.
4) The complainant’s spouse, Shreeti Das sent letter to Kolkata Office (OP-1) on 21.08.2017, through speed post, duly delivered, claiming to surrender the certificate due to higher education of her daughter. But no action or response was sent on behalf of the OP- 1 to the complainant or his spouse.
5) Such non-response by the OPs is nothing but deficiency in service by them.
The complainant and his spouse do not seem to have purchased any Sahara Q Shop Hospitality Products under plan H. They only invested the money in anticipation of lucrative return of the amounts. So, they are supposed to get back the money with reasonable interest. It is to be noted that they cannot claim return with interest as assured in the certificates i[a1] .e. (2.3 times etc.) as they did not wait till maturity of the certificates for six years.
6) It needs to be noted that the OPs neither did reply to the complainant in response to their letters nor did they turn up at the Forum in response to the notice. They failed to utilize the opportunity of controverting the points of allegations levelled against them in the complaint. Settled principle of law states that in such cases, the defaulting party is deficient. So the OPs are deficient.
So, it is clear to us that as soon as the complainant invested money with the OPs, the complainant became the consumer u/s 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P Act, 1986.
7) We have also seen that the OPs did not respond to the letters dated19.06.2017and 21.08.2017 of the complainant and his wife and did not pay any heed to their request. So, they are deficient in terms of Section 2(1) (g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, leading the complainant to financial distress.
So the complainant deserves some relief.
In the circumstances of above analytical discussions, we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte in terms of Section 13 (2) (b) (ii) of the C.P Act 1986, as amended;
That the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.12, 800/- with 9 percent interest from 13.09.2012 till date of actual payment, to Umesh Chandra Das, and to refund Rs.24, 200/- and Rs.12, 100/- with 9 percent interest from 27.06.2012 and 30.06.2012 respectively till date of actual payment to complainant’s spouse Shreeti Das, on submission of original certificates by the complainant, if not submitted earlier, within 30 days from the date of this order;
That the OPs are further directed to jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs.3000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order;
That on failure of the OPs to comply with the above orders, the complainant shall have the liberty to put the orders into execution in terms of Section 27 of the Act ibid.
Let copies of the Judgement be handed over to the parties when applied for.
