1. TARUN KUMAR PAUL. filed a consumer case on 26 Mar 2015 against 1. PRAYAG INFOTECH HI-RICE-LIMITED Basudeb Bagchi (President/ Director). in the South 24 Parganas Consumer Court. The case no is CC/304/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Mar 2015.
6 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO. _304_ OF ___2014_____
DATE OF FILING : 11.7.2014_ DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_26.3.2015_
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Dr. (Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty
COMPLAINANT : Tarun Kumar Paul, P.O Michael Nagar, Vill. Sukanta Nagar,
Dist. N-24PGs. Kol-133.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : Prayag Infotech Hi Rise Limited, Basudeb Bagchi(President/Director),
P-45, Bhupen Roy Road, Kolkata – 34, P.S. Behala.
________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President.
It is the short case of the complainant that O.P deals with selling of policies and schemes in various forms to their customers and complainant being attracted purchased a policy of the O.P ,where O.P promised to pay interest to the complainant every month for the entire tenure of the scheme depending upon the principal amount invested by the complainant and a sum mentioned in their Certificate issued by the O.P after completion of the tenure. It has claimed that being attracted with the advertisement of the O.p the complainant purchase a policy from the O.P being Policy no. 0006025612 of Sodepur Branch Code no. 115 at the cost of Rs.50,000/- for 5 years. Thereafter on 29.8.2011 complainant again purchased another policy bearing no.1150004691 .It has further stated that the O.P shall pay Rs.563/- and Rs.1125/- only per month for the entire 60 months .But the O.P only paid the complainant till December 2013 and thereafter stopped paying any single price.
The complainant states that complainant was never party in the Title Suit no.11680/13 before the Ld. 5th Civil Judge, Alipore, Kolkata. And also claimed that Ld. Civil Judge never appointed any Receiver as stated by the O.P. Hence, the case.
The O.P has contested the application by filing written version and has denied all the allegations leveled against them.
It is the positive case of the O.P that three policies are standing in the name of the complainant, wherein, maturity dates are 22.3.2016, 28.8.2016 and 28.12.2013 . Apart from the that there are Hotels and Tourism membership Facility Certificates issued by the O.P and in nature time sharing agreements which is an event of unused rooms after expiry of the fixed tenure. The Certificate Holder was entitled to get the one time payment of the amount deposited with the O.P with a bonus i.e. in case of Policy no.1150004691 dated 29.8.2011 after expiry of five years i.e. 28.6.2014 the complainant was supposed to get the maturity value. It is further stated that complainant was supposed to get a monthly sum of money calculated upon the diminishing bonus for the unused rooms in the opposite parties facility for the month. But Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 5th Court Alipore in T.S. no.11680/13 between Naba Kumar Ghosh and the O.P, the disbursement of payment of any kind has been stopped ,wherein special officer has been appointed by the Learned Court for making periodic payment of installments and maturity amount. It has stated that complainant himself has admitted the same in this proceedings.
It is the further defense of the O.P that the case is not maintainable as the purpose of the complainant was time sharing in the facilities of the O.P and hence involves element of profit in the said transaction which false within the aception.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Decision with reasons
The dispute as unfolded by the complainant is a profit motive. There is no whisper in the written complaint that the said policies and schemes were purchased for livelihood of the complainant. Apart from that we have perused the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in 1991 CPJ Page 78 ,wherein Hon’ble National Commission has observed that “Commission has also held in earlier cases as a matter of policy and principle that where the subject matter of complaint is sub-judice- before the ordinary Civil Court a concurrent adjudication in respect of the same will not be conducted by this Commission under the Act. The objection is not really on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but is one based on considerations of propriety and prudence keeping in view the necessity for avoidance of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings”.
It has further held by the Hon’ble National Commission that such elaborate scrutiny and settlement of accounts can be satisfactorily undertaken and performed only in a Regular Civil Suit and not in proceedings before this Commission under the Act which are more or less summary in nature.
In this circumstances, we find that in the instant case it is true that complainant is not a party to the suit but the subject matter of the case has already been entertained by the ordinary Civil Court in T.S. no.11680/13 and Receiver has already been appointed. Apart from that scrutiny and settlement of accounts is required to be done which is not possible in a proceedings of a summary trial.
So, the complainant is at liberty to approach before the competent Civil Court like other investors of Naba Kumar Ghosh in T.S. no.11680/13 pending before the 5th Court at Alipore.
After perusing the identical judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission as stated above, we are unable to pass any order save and except follow in to to the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission which is binding upon this Forum.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case being C.C.no. 304 of 2014 is disposed of with a liberty to file afresh before the competent Civil Court in the light of the observation made hereinabove.
Let a copy of this judgement be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum as it is ;
Ordered
That the case being C.C.no. 304 of 2014 is disposed of with a liberty to file afresh before the competent Civil Court in the light of the observation made hereinabove.
Let a copy of this judgement be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.