Ld. Advocate(s)

          For Complainant    .. Mukbul Rahaman

           For OP/OPs      .. Ex-Parte

Date of Filing           : 04.06.2019

Date of Disposal      : 03.03.2021

FINAL ORDER  dtd. 03.03.2021   :

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 Rs.11, 750/- 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.5,000/- to the OP No.1 on 10.12.2012 and the said investment was made under Q Shop Scheme of the O.Ps for six years and the OP No.1 duly issued a certificate being No. 56200 6791331. The date of the maturity of the said certificate was 10.12.2018.

It is 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 16.01.2019 expressed inability to pay maturity amount to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant sent advocate notice to the OP No.1 on 30.04.2019. 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:-

1. Copy of certificate No. 56200 6791331.

     2. Copy of advocate letter dated 22.04.2019.

Notices were served to the OPs. It appears from the order no. 3 dated 26.08.2019 that notice issued against OP no. 1 was returned with a remark ‘refused’, which is a good service, but even after that the OP No. 1  did not turn up. Therefore, the case is proceeded ex-parte against OP No. 1.

From the order no. 5 dtd. 05.02.2020, it transpires that OP No. 2, 3, and 4 received their respective notices and delivery was confirmed as per postal track consignments.

But the OP No 2, 3 and 4 even after receiving notices did not turn up before this District Forum (now Commission) to contest the case therefore, the case has been proceeded ex-party against all 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, 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. 5,000/- on 10.12.2012 under “Q Shop plan- H” with the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 accepted the said amount and issued a certificate being No. 56200 6791331. Such deposit was made for 6 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.5,000/- to the OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 issued a certificate as noted above which transpires that redemption amount and date was mentioned as Rs.11,750/ and 10.12.1018 respectively. The OP No. 1 did not pay back the maturity amount as aforesaid even after making demand and sending advocate letter. 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.11,750/- 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. 2,500/- 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.

It is to be mentioned here that the instant case was filed under provision of CP Act 1986 and the case was proceeded under the said Act.

Now, the C.P Act 1986 has been repealed and the new C.P Act 2019 has come into effect on and from 20.07.2020 and therefore, the order is passed U/S 39 of the C.P Act 2019.

Hence , it is

O R D E R E D,

That the Consumer Complaint, being No: CC/132/2019 is allowed ex-parte but in part. All the OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 11,750/- 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.2,500/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period  of 45 days.

Let a free copy be given to the parties concerned as per provision of C.P.R, 2020.