Order-16.

Date-27/02/2018.

AUTHOR. RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER

           This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The Complainant’s case in short is that on 23.9.2013, OP – 3 representing as an agent of O.P. 1 and 2 approached the Complainant to buy some Fixed Deposit Schemes of OP-1 to get lucrative returns and accordingly on the same day OP-3 sold some fixed deposit scheme Certificates of  Rs.100,000/- only in the name of complainant no. 1 with payable Maturity amount of Rs.105750/- only with  maturity date of 16.3.2014 , Rs.100,000/- only in the name of complainant no. 2 with payable Maturity amount of Rs.105750/- only with  maturity date of 16.3.2014, and lastly Rs.100,000/- only in the name of complainant no. 3 (being minor) with payable Maturity amount of Rs.105750/- only with  maturity date of 16.3.2014,  for and on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 by affixing the seal and signature of OP-3 on the certificate of F.D. Schemes to Complainant.

             After maturity, the Complainants approached all the OPs time and again by  visiting personally the offices of the OP and also by writing demanded for getting back the legitimate dues but OP has grossly neglected to pay back the dues. It is also stated that on 25/4/2014, complaints were registered with office of OP-3 and on 15/7/2014 , complaints were registered with office of OP-2 for non-payment of their dues. It is also stated that they were promised over phone that their dues would be cleared by 6 months but even after that period, they were neglected.

        Under this situation, the Complainants have no other option but to knock the doors of Hon’ble Forum for justice. The Complainants were refused and neglected to get back the dues in spite of repeated visits and the same is continuing till today. The Complainant  prayed before this Forum to pass an order on the OPs to pay Rs.317250/-(Rs 105750/-x3) /- as dues on Fixed Deposit, Rs1 lac for  harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-

           No Written Version has been filed by either OPs.

          The complainants affirmed the complaint by filing Evidence on Affidavit.

                                    Points for Discussions

        1) Whether the complainants are consumers under the OPs;

        2) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service;

        3) Whether the complainants deserve relief.

                                     DECISION WITH REASONS

        1) Neither of the OPs turned up to contest the case. All efforts were taken to deliver the summons to OPs. Summons were delivered to OP-2 on 06/6/2017, to OP-3 on 06/6/2017 and after returning of summons by OP-1, the same was sent through FAX and an Affidavit of Service was affirmed and filed by the complainant no.1. But in spite of all such efforts, OPs did not turn up to assist the Forum in finding the truth. It is presumed from settled principles of law that OPs indirectly admitted the allegations of the complainant.

        2) We have perused the documents filed by the complainants including FD Receipt Nos.1238857, 1238858 and 1238849 all dated 23.9.2013 showing dates of deposits of Rs 100000/- each on 23/9/2013 with maturity amounts of Rs 105750/- in each case payable on 16/3/2014 with an interest of 11.50 percent per annum.

        3) It appears from the Resolutions dated 15.6.2017 and 24.7.2017 of OP-3(Equity Brokers Pvt. Ltd, c/o,R.R.Investors Retail Services Private Ltd.) that Sri Anup Sen, Sr. Executive of its Kolkata Office has been authorized to represent the OP-3 in connection of, inter alia, Case No. CC/177/2017 before the CDRF, Kolkata-Unit-II.

        4) But unfortunately, in spite of being authorized and having received the summons of the Forum, OP-3 and the other two OPs did not turn up to contest the case. This could happen only when the OPs have nothing to controvert the points leveled by the complainants.

        5) The complainant no.1 sent a letter on 15/01/2014 to OP-2, before maturity on his wife’s stroke(heart) disease and a letter to OP-1 on 25/4/2014 with copies of FD Receipts  stating that after maturity of the FDR, he had deposited the original FDRs with the OP-3 on 11/02/2014 with earnest for payment but no heed was paid to such unfortunate depositors who had to request with folded hands to return the duty bound amounts but OPs did not pay back even on the date of final argument in end February, 2018.

        6) What can it be termed other than Unfair Trade Practice by the OPs? They are flouting the basic norms of business on Deposit and Returns in accordance with RBI Directives. In this unauthorized way, OPs are amassing wealth and are thriving with their business with the hard-earned money of the poor. We wonder how they dare run such business on the nose point of so many financial regulators.

       7) More trickery has been done by OP-3 when they received the Original FDRs for payment after maturity. They got the all three FDRs signed by the depositors/complainants with Revenue Stamps showing signed receipts of payments of Rs 100000/- in each case (mother Subhra Dalal signed on behalf of minor son, Arhan Dalal) and that is why OPs have been sitting idle, perhaps in the plea that payments have already been received by the complainants. The OPs mentioned the amount (Rs 100000/-) in figure and words against the FDR Nos. in each case but no cheque number has been mentioned. As per ‘IMPORTANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS’ printed on the reverse page of the FDRs, it is mandatory as stipulated at serial 4 that ‘The payment of Principal/Interest will be made by A/c Payee cheque.’

        Therefore, payment has not yet been made to complainants and it has to be made through A/c Payee cheques in favour of the depositors/complainants.

        8) It need not be mentioned that the complainants are consumers under the OPs because the complainants paid consideration by way of investing money and bought financial services from OPs. It is also crystal clear that the OPs failed to keep their promises in returning the amounts to the complainants after its maturity. So, OPs are deficient in rendering service and it is serious deficiency that they did not return the duty bound money to enable the complainant no.2 to undergo treatment. The complainants, therefore, very logically deserve relief.

        In the circumstances of above analysis, we are constrained to pass

                                                            ORDER

        That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte, in part, against the Opposite Parties in terms of section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended;

        That the Opposite Parties are directed to jointly and severally return Rs 105750/- with agreed interest of 11.50 percent per annum from 17/3/2014 till date of actual pay-back, to each of three complainants, Rs 10000/- to each of three complainants as compensation u/s 14(1)(d) of the Act, for physical harassment and serious mental agony and Rs 10000/- only as litigation cost, to the complainants, within 30 days from the date of this order;

         That the Opposite Parties are further directed to jointly and severally pay Rs 50000/- for adopting unfair trade practice, u/s 14(1)(hb) of the Act, to be deposited with this Forum, within 30 days from the date of this order;

        That on failure to comply with any of above orders by the Opposite Parties within the stipulated time, the complainants shall have the right to exercise the provision of execution under section 27 of the Act ibid, against the non-executing parties.

        Let copies of the order be handed over to the parties when asked for.