IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 74/2018
Date of Filing: 24.04.18 Date of Final Order: 29.11.2018
Complainant: Subimal Sarkar
S/O Late Nitya Prasad Sarkar,
16 No. Uma Bewa Lane, PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad Pin-742101,WB
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Authorised Signatory
Market Magnify Global Research Pvt. Ltd.
610, Vikashlekha Complex,
Scheme No.44 Khatiwala Tank, Indore (M.P.) Pin-452014
2. Authorised Signatory,
Market Magnify Investment Advisor & Research Pvt. Ltd.
610, Vikashlekha Complex,
Scheme No.44 Khatiwala Tank, Indore (M.P.) Pin-452014
3. Branch Manager
State Bank of India, Khagra Branch (Code 02020)
304/305, Netaju Road, PO-Khagra, PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742103,WB
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In person.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2 : Devendra Jain.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhya……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay,Member
This is a complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act,1986.
One Sri Subimal Sarkar (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against the Authorised Signatory, Market Magnify Global Research Pvt. Ltd. and another (here in referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service.
The brief fact of the case is as such :-
The Complainant transferred Rs. 4,87,000/- ( Four Lakhs Eightyseven Thousand) to OP namely, Market Magnify Global Research Private Limited with an intention of availing higher return. But the said OP in lieu of using that fund for higher and better return to Complainant allowed their sister concern Market Magnify Investment Adviser and Research Private Limited to utilize the same without the consent of the Complainant. As soon as the Complainant came to know about such practice contacted with the OP through e-mail several times for refund of his money paid to them in his savings account lying with State Bank of India, Khagra Branch, Berhampore, WB. But the OP paid no heed. Complainant also lodged complaint before SEBI but he received no positive result. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed this instant case for appropriate relief.
The OP No. 1 & 3 after due services of notice did not appear before this Forum to controvert the allegation made by the Complainant for the reason best known to them so the case proceeded ex-parte against them and OP No.2 filed written version stating that the company has added the term Investment adviser in place of Global to its name after following the guidelines of SEBI in the year 2015. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Undoubtedly, the Complainant tried to avail service from the OP1 namely Market Magnify Global Research Private Ltd. for better and higher return by way of depositing a total sum of Rs.4,87,000/- (Four Lakhs Eightyseven Thousand) from his SBI Savings Bank Account No. 10528152382, Khagra Branch, Berhapore, WB to the account of the bearing No.33211283144 (vide Annexure-E) on different dates such as 24.02.16, 04.03.16,11.03.16, 30.03.16, 29.03.16 etc. But the Complainant came to know that the said fund has been utilized by Market Magnify Investment Adviser & Research Pvt. Ltd. (OP2) instead of Market Magnify Global Research Private Ltd (OP1) without his consent. The Complainant made several communications for refund of the aforesaid amount (vide Annexure-G) as the OP2 was utilising the said fund for the benefit of the service product of the Op2 in lieu of providing benefit to the complainant as proposed by the Op1 over their telephonic communication . The Complainant also lodged a complaint before SEBI but all went in vain.
OP2 in the written version stated that the company Market Magnify Global Research Pvt. Ltd and Market Magnify Investment Advisor & Research Pvt.Ltd.is the same concern as the name of the company has been changed in the year 2015 as per following the guideline of SEBI and the company has added the term Investment adviser in place Global and xerox copy of the same has been filed by the party and from the record it is also evident that this fact has been communicated to the complainant through mail also . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and argument advanced by the Complainant, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of the ops as the O.P. No. 1&2 are the same concern and the complainant has provided his money to them for better profit . The Complainant has failed to establish that the O.P. No. 1 & the O.P.No. 2 are different concern. So the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case . Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed without cost.
Reasons for delay:
The Case was filed on 24.04.18 and admitted on 04.05.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order..
Fees paid are correct. Hence it is
Ordered
that the complaint case No.74/2018 is dismissed against the O.P.s without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website: confonet.nic.in
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member President
