Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant .. Makbul Rahaman
For OP/OPs .. Ex-Parte
Date of Filing : 03.06.2019
Date of Disposal : 12.04.2021
: FINAL ORDER dtd. 12.04.2021 :
An application has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OPs for non payment of the maturity amount of one certificate of Rs.31,779/- along with up to date interest as prayed in the petition of the complaint.
The complainant further claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment etc and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant invested a sum of Rs.13,500/- to the OP No.1 on 12.05.2012 and the said investment was made under fixed deposit Schemes of the O.Ps under “ Q shop Plan”[Plan-H] for 06 years and the OP No.1 duly issued one certificate being No. 56200 4009733. The date of the maturity of the said certificate was 12.05.2018.
It is the contention of the complainant that after the expiry of the maturity date the complainant demanded for the said maturity amount to the OP No.1 and it is alleged by the complainant that OP No.1 on 23.01.2019 expressed inability to pay maturity amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant sent advocate notice to the OP No.1 on 26.04.2019. But even after that the OP No.1 did not pay the maturity benefit to the complainant in respect of the said certificate.
Finding no other alternative, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint before this District Forum (now District Commission) for proper redressal.
The complainant along with his complaint petition filed the following documents:-
- Copy of certificate being No. 56200 4009733.
- Copy of advocate letter dated 22.04.2019.
Notices were served to the OPs.
It appears from the order no.5 dated 20.12.2019 that notices were served to all the OPs. But the O.Ps did not turn up before this District Forum and therefore this Forum decided to proceed with the case ex-parte against all the O.Ps and accordingly the case was proceeded ex-parte against the OPs.
During hearing, the complainant filed written affidavit-in-chief and submitted the original document as mentioned above by making annexure in order to prove the case.
From the complaint petition, evidence adduced by the complainant and other materials on record the following points have been framed:
1. Is the complainant a consumer?
2. Are the OPs deficient in providing service?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as per prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All the points have taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is seen from the evidence of the complainant and other materials on record that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 13,500/- on 12.05.2012 under “Q Shop Plan-H” (“PLAN-H”) with the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 accepted the said amount and the O.P No:1, being the authorised signatory of O.Ps Company, issued one certificate being No. 56200 4009733. Such deposit was made for 06 years only.
Therefore, in our view the complainant is a consumer under OPs as per definition given U/S 2(1) (d) of the C.P Act 1986 and the O.Ps were the service providers of the complainant as per definition of U/S 2(o) C.P Act 1986.
Now, in order to ascertain, whether the OPs were deficient or not we have to consider the evidence of the complaint once again.
It is evident from the evidence of the complaint that the complainant invested Rs.13,500/- to the OP No. 1 and the O.P No:1, being the authorised signatory of the OPs Company, issued certificate as noted above which transpires that gross or total redemption amount of the deposit was Rs.31,779/- and the maturity date was 12.05.2018. The OPs did not pay back the maturity amount as aforesaid even after making demand and sent advocate letter.
Here, the status of the O.P No:1 is not merely as an “agent”, as the O.P No:1 ,being the franchise holder collected the money from the complainant and issued certificate on behalf of the O.Ps company. In our view the O.P No: 1 is also a service provider who has acted as franchise holder cum authorised signatory authority of the O.Ps Company. The O.P No: 1 did not pay back the maturity amount as aforesaid. The O.P No. 2, 3 and 4 are the Regional Manager, Chief Manager and Managing Director of the same company.
In our view, of all the OPs are deficient in service for non disbursing the maturity amount of Rs.31,779/- to the complainant. And the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for but in part.
In order to ascertain the quantum of compensation and litigation cost we think that an amount of Rs.5,000/-as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding are appropriate and just in order to mitigate the loss suffered by the complainant. Therefore, we award such amount as compensation and litigation cost.
The unchallenged testimony of the complainant proves his case.
All the points go in favour of the complainant.
Hence , it is
O R D E R E D,
That the Consumer Complaint, being No: CC/119/2019 is allowed ex-parte but in part. All the OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.31,779/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
In default such amount shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a. till realisation.
All the OPs are further jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period of 45 days.
In default the Complainant is at liberty to file an execution application for enforcement of the final order before this District Commission as per provisions of law.
Let a free copy be given to the parties concerned as per provision of C.P.R.
