DATE OF FILING : 02.05.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 07-08-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-01-2015.
Sri Tarashankar Banerjee,
son of late Bholanath Banerjee,
for self and the constituted attorney of the
complainant nos. 2 to 4.
- Smt. Jayanti Baanerjee,
wife of Sri Tarashankar Banerjee,
both are residing at 16/1, Poddar Bagan Lane,
District Hooghly.
- Sri Sandip Mukhopadhyay,
son of late Deb Kumar Mukhopadhyay,
residing at 5/1, Palpara Lane, Tentultala, Bhaddeswar,
District Hooghly.
- Sri Somnath Mkukherjee,
son of late Rathindranath Mukherjee,
residing at Bankim Abasan, Bhaddeswar,
District Hooghly. ……………………………………………COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
1. ASSDA Agro Project Limited,
having its registered and head office
69, B.T. Road, Panihati, P.S. Kardah, Kolkata 711114.
having its branch office at 301, G.T. Road, 1st Floor,
Belur Bazar, near Belur Girls School,
District Howrah,
PIN 711202, being represented by its
Managing Direcot viz. Aloke Das,
son of Abani Mohan Das,
residing at 476, Nandan Nagar, Belgharia,
District North 24 Parganas,
PIN 7000 83.
2. Sri Debasish Dutta,
son of Gouranga Dutta,
as the Executive Director of Assda Agro Project Limited,
residing at 13, Adarsha Pally, Belgharia,
District Nor 24 Parganas,
PIN 7000 56.
3. Nabarun Dutta,
son of Monilal Dutta,
as the Administrative Director of Assda Agro Project Limited,
residing at 7, Teachers Colony Agarpara,
Kolkata 700056.
4. Sheikh Ajger Ali,
son of Sheke Jakir Hossain,
as the Director of Assda Agro Project Limited,
residing at Md. Kala Chand Road, P.O. Ghola Bazar,
North 24 Parganas, Kolkata 700 111.
5. Sk. Mansur Ali,
son of Sheke Jumman Ali,
as Director of Assda Agro Project Limited,
Residing at Iswaripur, Suryapur, Khardah, North 24 Parganas,
Kolkata 700 121.
6. Sheke Jasmir Hossain,
son of Akbor Hossain,
as the Chairman of Assda Agro Project Limited,
residing at Iswaripur, Nilganj Road, P.O. Suryapur,
North 24 Parganas, Kolkata 7743120.
7. Baghajatin Biswas,
son of late late Adhir Kumar Biswas,
residing at 3 no. N.S. Road, Sasthitala, Telinipara,
P.S. Bhaddeswar,
District Hooghly……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainants four in numbers by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund deposited amounts as well as the maturity amounts of monthly interest and monthly recurring deposits amounting to Rs. 11,39,856/- to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation in total and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainants madeinvestmentsin the scheme of monthly interest scheme, recurring deposits of o.p. The o.p.issued certificates vide Annexures in favour of the complainants which areas follows :
M.I.S. Certificate no. 119158,
Monthly Recurring Certificate no. R-2/00645,
M.I.S. Certificate no. 120191, 119238, 119157,
Monthly Recurring Certificate no. R-2/00644,
M.I.S. Certificate no. 119242, R-2/00589,
M.I.S. Certificate no. 119239,
Monthly Recurring Certificate no. R-2/00492, R-2/00515.
- O.P. promised to pay the monthly interest on the due dates to the complainants and upto December, 2012 they paid the same regularly. Thereafter they stopped to make any payment towards monthly interest. Complainants repeatedly went to the office of o.ps. but on different pleas they have returned the complainants without giving their monthly interest amount as well as the maturity amount. It is further stated by the complainants that due to this non action and gross negligence on the part of the o.ps., complainants have been compelled to face tremendous problem due to scarcity of money with which they were supposed to meet their day to day expenditure, medical expenditure, children’s education etc. which are really at stake. So, finding no other alternative, complainants filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notices were served. O.ps. neither appeared nor filed any written version except o.p. no. 7. O.p. no. 7 filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte against o.ps.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainantsare entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainants and noted its contents. Admittedly complainants invested a large amount in the o.ps. company. It is a fact that o.ps. have failed to pay the monthly interest since January, 2013 for which complainants felt tremendous monetary problem. Because, people invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep its promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour ofcomplainants. For their gross negligence in discharging duties, complainants had to suffer a lot for the crying need of money. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, complainants made those investments foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.ps.’severe negligence, complainants are, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. Moreover, the o.ps. have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons . No W/V has been filed by o.ps. which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted against o.ps. except o.p. no. 7. We have gone through the W/V filed by o.p. no. 7 who is only an agent of others o.ps. and for every act of the agent, principal is liable being o.p. nos. 1 to 6. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainants.O.ps. have miserably failedto keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency inservice coupled with unfair trade practice on theirpart which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainants should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence, O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 261 of 2014 ( HDF 261 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 to 6 and dismissed against o.p. no. 7 without costs.
That the O.P. nos. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally directed to pay the principal amount as well as maturity amount of all investments of the complainants along with upto date monthly due interest in terms of the certificates in question within one month from this order i.d., at the rate of 9 per cent p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amount till actual payment.
The complainants do get an award as litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- and o.ps. are directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d., the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9 per cent p.a. till actual payment
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
