West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/71/2022

Sri Jay Raj Das, S/O- Madhu Mangal Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Kamarpara F.C. Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Debashis Barman

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

The brief fact of the complaint case is that the complainant is an investor of Humara India Credit Co-operative society Limited, a concerned of Sahara India Pariwar under the Kamarpara Branch. The complainant invests a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) under the scheme of F-64 Golden A Double on 30.09.2016 and Kamarpara Branch issued a certificate vide No.465000012738 and matured on 30.01.2022. After the maturity of the above mentioned policy the complainant wants to get his maturity amount and submits his prayer to the office of the O.P. on several times, but the O.P. did not co-operate with the complainant and refused to give the received copy of his prayer.  Lastly, the complainant on 03.06.2022 submits his prayer for claim to the O.P. through the registry post, thereafter; also they did not take any action in this regard. The complainant deposited the above mentioned money for his better future and to fulfill his needs at the time of crisis. But till today the complainant did not get his maturity amount. Due to the illegal activities of the O.P. the complainant suffered irreparable loss and pecuniary injury.  But due to the negligent act of the O.P. the complainant files this instant case against the O.P. u/s 35 of C.P. Act 2019 claiming the principle amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) along with maturity benefits and interest as per the F-64 Golden A Double scheme and compensation of Rs. 10,000/, Rs 10,000/-as litigation cost.

 

   Notice was issued upon the O.P. and the O.P. entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint are denied and it has been contended inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the O.P. that due to some litigation pending with SEBI and the Apex Court regarding the financial transaction of the O.P. group imposed embargo on the movable immovable properties due to which the payment has remained stopped and the O.P. craves leave of this Commission and prays for dismissal of the instant case.  

 

   In this case complainant has submitted examination in chief supported by affidavit together with original copy of following one Certificate by firisti-

 

Sl No	Certificate No.	Date	Invested  Amount	Maturity date	Maturity Amount
1.	465000012738	30.09.2016	Rs.5,000/-	30.01.2022	Rs 10,000/-

 

1. Original Certificate of F-64 GOLDEN A DOUBLE Scheme.

2. Original letter dated 03.06.2022.

3. Postal receipt vide no. EW966772296IN.

 

            O.P. had also submitted examination in chief of by way of affidavit but no document is submitted on the side of the O.P.   

 

                                 Points for discussion

 

1. Is the complainant a consumer to the opposite party?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

                          DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

Point No.1 This is admitted fact that complainant invested a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) under the scheme of F-64 Golden A Double of the opposite party. So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

 

 Point No.2 & 3 These two issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. This is admitted fact that the complainant invested a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) and the O.P. has issued a certificate of F-64 Golden A Double policy on 30.09.2016. It is also admitted fact that the maturity period of 64 months was already over on 30.01.2022. This is also not disputed that the complainant has not yet received any single farthing from the O.P. against the aforesaid investments.

 

We have looked into the complaint, the written version of the O.P. and evidence filed by the parties minutely. All these reveal that the complainant is a bona-fide consumer of the O.P. and he is entitled to get maturity amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) only together with interest as per terms and condition of the aforesaid scheme but the O.P. has violated the terms and conditions and there is no denial of the fact about lack of responsibility in discharging their duties on the part of the O.P. Therefore in our opinion there lies deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 

Accordingly all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

 Hence, it is

                                                    O R D E R E D

           That the Consumer complaint Case No.71/2022 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the O.P. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) only as maturity value of the invested amount together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The O.P. is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand only) as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) towards litigation cost in default complainant has liberty to execute the order as per law. 

          Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.