West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/54/2015

Kashinath Samanta, S/O Late Madhusudan Samanta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. CMD, Corp Office- Maxx Boon Marketting Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Saikat Dutta Mazumder.

29 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _54_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 30.1.2015                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  29.6.2016

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :     Sharmi Basu &  Subrata Sarkar

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :     Kashinath Samanta,s/o late Madhusudan Samanta, Village- Basudebpur, Bhagman Para, Kolkata – 14, P.O Jote Shibrampur, P.S. Maheshtala.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :     1. C.M.D , Maxx Boon Marketing Limited, 4/19, Poddar Nagar, Kolkata – 68, P.S. Jadavpur and Jagacha, P.O GIP Colony, Santragachi, Howrah-711112.

                                              2.    Deputy Registrar of companies, Maxx Boon Marketing Limited, 3, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Howrah- 711104,

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the allegation that for future security he has deposited a sum of Rs.25000/- as well as Rs.50,000/- under two separate fixed deposit scheme with the O.P. It has further claimed that O.P also assured that in respect of the fixed deposit of Rs.25000/- dated 17.5.2013 under plan B Customer ID no.MBC/P 001110 for the period of 60 months ,complainant will get Rs450/- in every month as monthly interest. Again another fixed deposit was made for Rs.50,000/- on 26.11.2013 wherein Customer ID no. MBC/P 001250 under Plan B for the period of 16 months  and assurance of interest was Rs.900/- in every month. Both the assurances are annexed as annexure 1 and 2. But up till 2014 everything was going smoothly and thereafter complainant was not receiving any amount from those two fixed deposits. Even two cheque drawn on Bank of India being cheque no. 000151 AND 000152 dated 1.12.2014 and 15.12.2014 for the amount of Rs.1060/- and Rs.3500/- were bounced . But thereafter O.P only has given Rs.2000/- in cash but on several requests the O.P remained silent and did not send any amount as monthly interest. Hence, this case for recovery of Rs.75000/- as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- and other reliefs.

O.P-1 appeared through vakalatnama but none appears on behalf of the O.P-2.

O.P-1 filed written version but no step is taken thereafter. Thus cost was imposed Rs.500/- against the O.P-1 and lastly again another cost was imposed Rs.1000/- . Thus Rs.1500/- was imposed against the O.P-1 which will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund but even then none turned up ,for which case was heard by this bench in absence of the O.P-1 and case against was heard in exparte.

The short case of the O.P-1 is that case is not maintainable in view of the C.P Act, 1986. It has been admitted by the O.P-1 that the company ,Maxx Boon Marketing Limited was incorporated under companies Act and also admitted that said company was involved in out sourcing company and giving a return of monetary relief after observing some terms and conditions to the investors . It is denied that said company has given any option to the complainant for giving any monthly house rent at his retired days in lieu of any investment as alleged . It has also denied regarding the investment of fixed deposit scheme to the said company. It has also denied regarding the designation of CMD of the said company. He has also stated that on 11.6.2014 he has resigned from the said company, which was accepted and duly informed by the Director Gourab Mukhopadhyay. So, complainant has falsely and erroneously impleaded him in this case and prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

Admittedly money was taken from the complainant which is appearing from the money receipts which is exhibit no.1 and 2. Apart from that, photocopy of the two cheque amounting to Rs.3500/- and Rs.1060/- clearly suggest that said cheque was bounced which was not encashed in the account of the complainant which is more clear from the photocopy of the pass book of relevant daters ,since there is no entry in the credit side of the said passbook. Thus the totality of the circumstances clearly suggests that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the explanation of O.P-1 that he is not the CMD of the O.P company and already resigned cannot be accepted. We find that there is no personal liability of any person holding the post of CMD. The responsibility will be casted upon the Post who is holding the post of CMD. Thus the written version filed by Sandip Sengupta is accepted and he has no persona liability in this regard. But the post of CMD of the company,O.P, has or had liability in this regard.

Within that observation we find that there is a deficiency in service exercised by both the O.Ps.

Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case is allowed in exparte against the O.Ps since the complainant did not take step for inserting name of new CMD of the company in this case.

The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.75000/- ( Rs.25000/- + Rs.50,000/-)  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

The O.Ps are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-  and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within the stipulated period as above, failing which, complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through this Bench in execution proceedings.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

Member                                                      Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

 

                                                                        Ordered

That the case is allowed in exparte against the O.Ps since the complainant did not take step for inserting name of new CMD of the company in this case.

The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.75000/- ( Rs.25000/- + Rs.50,000/-)  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

The O.Ps are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-  and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within the stipulated period as above, failing which, complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through this Bench in execution proceedings.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

Member                                                      Member                                                                President