Orissa

Ganjam

CC/45/2018

Sri Sanjay Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sector Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Bighneswar Padhi,Mr. Santosh Kumar Padhi, Advocates.

26 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GANJAM,
BERHAMPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/45/2018
( Date of Filing : 20 Aug 2018 )
 
1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Sahu
S/o. Late Chandrasekhar Sahu, At. Haridakhandi Anandmarg School Road, P.o. Panigrahi Pentha, Ps. Bada Bazar, Barhampur, Ganjam
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Sector Manager
Sahara India Ltd, Tata Benz Square, Berhampur - 4, Ganjam.
2. The Regional Manager, Sahara India Ltd
Tata Benz Square, Berhampur, Ganjam.
3. The Zonal Manager, Sahara India Ltd,
Bhubaneswar, Plot No. 50 Empire Hotel, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar - 7, Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Tripathy MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Mr. Bighneswar Padhi,Mr. Santosh Kumar Padhi, Advocates. , Advocate
For the Opp. Party: EXPARTE., Advocate
Dated : 26 Sep 2019
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.09.2019.

Sri Karunakar Nayak,President:

    

               The complainant Sanjay Kumar Sahu has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.

               2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a bonafide consumer of Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and having contributing may be eligible to get return on contribution ranging from 10 to 15% per annum depositing upon the return on investments earned by the society Hologram No. 992318699256.  The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.51,000/- having Certificate No.304002676598 under receipt No. 34006101917 and membership number 911394000993 on 30.09.2014 which will be payable on 30.09.2015. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 having  principal to principal relation on repeated personal approach and motivation of the O.Ps cunningly could able to create confidence of the complainant to invest such huge amount which was hard earned and service benefits of the complainant with O.P.No.1. Due to nonpayment of contribution amount alongwith interest to the complainant in time as per contract and/or agreement, the O.Ps deceit the complainant and it is a case of the unfair trade practice.  The O.P.No.1 & 2 so far no step has been taken to refund the said amount after repeated approach to the complainant. The complainant approached uncountable times in person to the O.P.No.1 to 3 but to no avail. The complainant sent a registered advocate notice dated 18.01.2018 to the O.P.No.1 to 3 but the O.Ps after receipt of the said notice but did not choose to reply the same.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund an amount of Rs.51,000/- with 10 to 15% interest per annum  as per certificate issued from the date of investment, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agonies in the best interest of justice.

               3. Notices were issued against the Opposite parties. Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, High Court, Lucknow appeared on behalf of O.Ps but not filed any written version. Hence all the O.Ps set exparte on dated 26.03.2019.

               4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case record and also perused the materials on the case record. We have also thoughtfully considered the submission made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant.  Despite several persuasions the O.Ps did not heed to consider the grievance of the complainant. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his case. Hence in our considered view the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for which the complainant at this stage is entitled to get some relief as prayed for. Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi  has hold that “Non payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”.

               In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund Rs.51,000/- with 10% interest per annum from the date of filing this case i.e. on 20.08.2018 to the complainant within 60 days from receipt of this order.  Further the O.Ps are  also directed  to pay Rs.5000/- for compensation along with Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest  per annum.  

               The order is pronounced on this day of 26th September 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Tripathy]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.