DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

             C.C. CASE NO. 130_ OF ___2016

DATE OF FILING : 25.11.2016                              DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  28.03.2018

Present                      :   President       :     Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker                                               

COMPLAINANT              :         1. Madan Singh

                                                     2.  Sadhana Singh ,wife of Madan Singh , both of C/4, Rabindra Pally, Baghajatin, Kolkata – 86.      

-    VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :   1. Dulal Chakraborty

                                                2.  Rahul Chakraborty, son of Dulal Chakraborty , both of Garia, Natun Disara Banspole, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150. 

_____________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

     Briefly stated, the complainants‘ case is that they purchased a land for Rs.1 lac with the help of O.p-1 who acted as a broker. Thereafter O.P-2 i.e Rahul Chakraborty came to them and convinced them that he would cause the land to be sold at Rs.5 lac and would also make arrangement for another land for them on roadside. ThusO.P-2 received Rs.35000/- from the complainants.

      The complainants also made payment of Rs.50,000/-to O.P-2 as the O>p-2 promised to procure a job for complainant-1 i.e Madan Singh in the Department of Central Bureau of Investigation. But when the O.P-2 could not procure the job for the complainant no.1, a cheque for Rs.50,000/-was given to the complainants by one Dipak Das who is called an Officer of C.B I. The said cheque has been dishonoured and, therefore, the complainant have now approached this Forum  with the filing of the instant case, praying for passing a direction to return Rs.85000/- to the complainants by O.P-2 and for compensation etc. Hence, this case.

     O.P nos. 1 and 2 appeared in this case. But they have not filed any written statement and , therefore, case is heard exparte against them.

      The complainants have filed a petition, praying for treating their petition of complaint as their evidence and consequently the same has been so accepted vide order no.7 date 19.5.2017.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Now to see whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

The complainants have presented a two fold case. One of its allegation is that they paid Rs.35000/- to O.P-2 as O.P-2 promised them to sell their land at Rs.5 lacs. It is also their case that O.P-2 has sold away the said land to one Bapi Das. The burden of proof always lies upon the complainants. To prove their case, complainants have filed one agreement written on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/-. This agreement is seen to have been signed on 14.7.2015 by both the O.P-2 and complainant no.1. A perusal of this agreement reveals that O.P-2 accepted Rs.35000/- from the complainant for the reason that he would restore the possession of the land to the complainants by driving out usurpers and by mutating the land in the name of the complainants. So, it is found that the averment of the complainants is not in keeping with the averment in the agreement. It is noticed that three is a great difference between the pleadings and the proof and noticing this difference between the pleadings and proof, we feel compelled to say that the complainants have not been able to establish their case in so far as the payment of Rs.35000/- is concerned.

Next comes the question of payment of Rs.50,000/- to O.P-2 by the complainants for getting a job in C.B.I. To procure a job by making payment of money is an illegal act and the complainants have done that illegal act. After doing that illegal act , they have come forward before this Court of Law for return of that money which was advanced by them allegedly to O.p-2 for illegal purpose. In the instant transaction there is no consideration. We know very well that an agreement is void if consideration and object thereof is unlawful ,vide section 24 of the Contract Act. In the instant case money was advanced by the complainants to O.P-2 for securing a job by unlawful means and this being so, the consideration which the complainants advanced to O.P-2 is unlawful and as such it is void. To become a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the transaction must be supported by a consideration. This consideration must be a lawful one. But in the instant case the consideration is void as being unlawful. So, the complainants are not consumers and as such their case is not maintainable in this regard.

Further the complainant’s case is that the cheque which was given to them by the O.P-2 has been dishonoured for insufficient fund. A copy of the said cheque has been filed herein and a perusal of the said cheque reveals that the said cheque has been signed by one Dipak Das who is said to be an Officer of C.B.I. We do not know who this Dipak Das is or whether it is a ghost name or not.

Be that as it may, the said Dipak Das is not a party to this case and , therefore, the instant complainants are not entitled to get any relief against O.P-2.

In the result the case fails.

Hence,

                                                                                     ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps considering the facts and circumstances of the case we pass no order as to the cost of the proceedings.

Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.

                                                                                                                             President

We / I    agree.

                                                                        Member

 Dictated and corrected by me

                                  President