Judgment : Dt.9.2.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member.
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act by Sri Jayjit Ghosh, Smt. Sabita Ghosh and Smt. Subhra Ghosh alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties – (1) The Teachers’ Welfare Credit and Holding Ltd., (2) The Managing Director of The Teachers’ Welfare Credit & Holding Ltd., (3) The Branch Manager, The Teachers’ Welfare Credit & Holding Ltd.
Case of the Complainants, in brief, is that being approached as well as convinced by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3, the Managing Director and the Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1 limited company, the complainant invested their money with the opposite party No.1 in favour of them, by way of fixed deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- and monthly income scheme for Rs.11,00,000/- i.e. Rs.14,00,000/- in total on different dates from 29.10.2009 to 15.07.2016. It is alleged by the Complainants that since February, 2016, the opposite party No.1 has not been disbursing any MIS benefit in favour of the Complainants. The Complainant has stated that they made attempts on several occasions to meet the opposite party Nos.2 & 3, but were prevented from doing so and subsequently found the office of the opposite party under lock and key and, therefore, finding no other alternative they tried to lodge a complaint with P.S.-Jadavpur but was refused by the concerned officer.
The Complainants as to relief by filing the instant petition of complaint have prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.14,00,000/- only as to refund which was invested with OP No.1, to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards physical strain, mental agony and harassment, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Notices were served but the opposite parties did not turn up. So, the case was heard ex-parte against opposite parties vide order No.6 dt.10.1.2018.
The Complainant adduced evidence on affidavit.
Decision with reasons
On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the Complainant annexed Photostat copies of Money Receipt issued by the opposite party No.2 on 14.3.2012, in favour of Jayjit Ghosh and Sabita Ghosh for Rs.1,50,000/- on 11.5.2013 in favour of Subhra Ghosh and Jayjit Ghosh for Rs.50,000/- on 29.10.2009 in favour of Subhra Ghosh and Jayjit Ghosh for Rs.50,000/- on 12.11.2014 in favour of Jayjit Ghosh and Sabita Ghosh for Rs.50,000/- and on 15.7.2016 in favour of Jayjit Ghosh for Rs.11,00,000/-.
The unchallenged evidence as well as copies of money receipts adduced by the Complainants proved the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as made out in the petition of complaint.
Under such state of affair, we are of opinion that the Complainants should get the deposited amount refunded.
Further, as the OPs failed to provide promised service and became non-responsible so this inaction on the part of the OPs caused mental and physical strain of the Complainants for which, as we are inclined to hold that they should pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants towards compensation.
Since the OPs compelled the Complainants to file the instant case for deficiency in service on part of them, they are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the result, the consumer complaint succeeds.
Hence,
ordered
That the Consumer complaint being No.CC/600/2017 is allowed in part ex-parte against the OPs with cost.
The OPs are directed to refund the deposited amount to the depositor respectively i.e. Rs.12,50,000/- to the Complainant No.1, Sri Jayjit Ghosh, Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant No.2 Smt. Sabita Ghosh and Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant No.3 Smt. Subhra Ghosh within two months of this order.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainants within the aforesaid period failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
Liabilities of the OPs are joint and several.
