AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DEFICIENCY in finance service is grievance of the complainants in those three complaints. Some of the opposite parties and the question involved in all these three complaints being the same, they are taken up for hearing together. Despite valid service of notice, opposite parties have not entered appearance.
AS per advertisement, complainants applied for financial accommodation. Under the terms complainants were required to deposit certain amounts. They deposited the same. Thereafter, opposite parties have not rendered the financial assistance as provided in the terms. In absence of any denial and on perusal of documents, we are satisfied that assertions made by the complainants are correct. After assuring to render financial service and complainants having performed their part of the agreement, non-performance of the term of the agreement as given out by the opposite parties, is a deficiency in service.
In similar circumstances, in C.D. Case No. 39 of 1992 (Durga Charan Sahoo v. Branch Manager, Tapoban Housing Finance Limited) decided on 28.1.1993, we have held that there is deficiency in service. In view of the aforesaid decision, we direct the opposite parties to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the refund is made failing which complainants shall be free to execute this order and get the amounts refunded.
WITH the direction aforesaid, complaints are disposed of. Complaints allowed. ________________