IMPORTANT POINT
Full maturity amount must be paid to investors.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Complainant addressed a letter dated 09.12.2011 to President of this Commission and same has been treated as revision petition. Following averments have been made in it:

“Sir, I had appealed against the case no.183/03 of Cuttack State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack on 24.4.2004. Sir, I had gone to the Consumer Forum 3-4 times at Cuttack but there the officer told that why you come again and again. Whenever there is hearing of your case, we will inform you before. But at the time of hearing, they did not inform us anything; only judgment was sent through post. On going there and asking in the Court, the officer said that they had forgotten to inform about the hearing. Now, nothing can happen here. You appeal in the National Consumer Court.

Therefore, I am sending photo copy of all the records and order of the State Consumer Court so that I get justice.

Now, Manager of Sahara Parivar States that you did not give what we wanted. No, wherever you lodge the case, you cannot win.

So, please arrange to get me proper compensation and give us justifiable help”.

2. Brief facts as emerges from record are that, one Radhey Shyam Khemka, his wife-Rukma Devi(Petitioner herein) and Tara Chand Khemka filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bolangir (for short, ‘District Forum’) alleging that they deposited amount under “Golden-7 Scheme” formulated by the Respondent/O.P. Tara Chand Khemka deposited Rs.42,000/- @ Rs.6,000/- yearly for 7 years vide A/c No. 18435001300 and his wife Rukma Devi deposited Rs.39,000 @ Rs. 500/- per month for 6 ½ years vide A/c. No. 1843500803. As per pass-book chart, T.C. Khemka would get Rs.79,018/- but respondent has paid Rs.73,216/- i.e. Rs.5,802/- less and Smt. Rukma Devi has got Rs. 63,872/- in place of Rs.72,473.65 P i.e. Rs.5,606.65P less.

3. It is further alleged that not only that, respondent has not made entry of Rs.500/- in the monthly deposit of Smt. Rukma Devi. Complainants brought these facts to the knowledge of the respondent and requested him to pay the full maturity amount but respondent did not care to pay the same. Hence, this case.

4. Respondent in its objection stated that no doubt Rs.500/- has not been entered in the account of Rukma Devi due to clerical error and when the said fact came to his knowledge he immediately contacted his higher authority and on their directions, made entry in the account of the Petitioner of Rs.1,043/- for Rs.500/-. Both the policy holders have received their amount without any objection. Policy holders are entitled to receive full maturity amount if they make the payment of the premium on or before the due date. In case of default there will be reduction in the payment of interest and ultimately the maturity amount will be less. Both the policy holders defaulted from the beginning to deposit the premium within due date as per policy condition for which less maturity amount was given to them rightly. There is no deficiency in service of the respondent. Hence, the case may be dismissed with cost.

5. District Forum, vide its order dated 18.3.2004, partly allowed the complaint.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, Smt. Rukma Devi, one of the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission.

7. Before the State Commission when the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner while counsel for respondent was present. Vide impugned order dated 22.09.2011, appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed.

8. Hence, this petition.

9 . On 30.3.2012, after hearing the husband of the petitioner, notice was issued to respondent for 27.7.2012. On 27.7.2012, none was present on behalf of the petitioner, hence revision petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

10. Later on, petitioner filed an application for restoration which was allowed in the absence of the petitioner, vide order dated 4.12.2012 and matter was listed o