In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Murshidabad at Berhampore.

Case No. CC/64/2016

Date of filing:  29/04 /2016                                                                   Date of Final Order: 14/09/2016

1).Swapan Kundu & 27 others

P.O.& P.S.- Berhampore.

Dist- Murshidabad, PIN.-742101.(W.B.)………………………………………………………...Complainant              

                                                 - Vs-

1).The Branch Manager, Togo Retail Marketing Ltd.

Having its Office at Chuanpur, Near Sangam Hotel,

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

2). PrithiPaul  SinghSethi.

Director of Togo Retail Mkt. Ltd.

487/88, No-1, 1^st Floor Mongal Bazar Road,

Near Shidh Baba Mandi, Peeragrahi New Delhi-110087..…………………………..   Opposite Party

Mr.Debmalya Dutta. Ld. Advocate………………………………………for the Complainants.

Ex-parte against the OP

                    Before:       Hon’ble Member,  Samaresh Kumar Mitra.           

                                        Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.                                          

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Presiding Member.

            The simple version of the complainants as enumerated in the complaint is that the complainants deposited money to the OP on different dates on different schemes as they were assured by the OPs that they will be benefited other than any nationalized banks and other financial institutions if they deposit money before the OPs. The issued certificates in respect of deposited money before the OP No.1 were matured in the year 2014 &2016 and the matured amount was Rs.4,71,266.00 copy of which is annexed with the case record. After the maturity the complainants went to the office of the OP several times and requested them to refund their maturity amount but the OP did not pit no hid at the request of the depositors. Getting no money from the OP after the maturity the Complainants filed the instant complaint before the Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint.

             The investment details as depicted from the documents as produced by the complainants are as follows:

             The notice as sent to the OP No.1 returned back in the Forum with a remark ‘no such person’ by the postal department and the notice sent to the OP No.2 also returned back with a remark ‘Not claim’.The OPs willfully avoided the notice of this Forum and did not turn up and filed no written version as such the proceeding run ex-parte against the OPs.

           Thereafter the complainants filed evidence on affidavit in which they assailed that they deposited the same for getting assured amount on/ after the date of maturity. But the OP did not refund the matured amount to these complainants for which the complainants compelled to file this complaint before this Forum for getting direction upon the OPs to pay the matured amount of Rs. 4,71,266.00 plus interest @ 10%  and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.

               The agent on behalf of the complainants advanced argument in ex-parte and it is heard in full and fixed next date for passing Final Order.        

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainants Swapan Kundu& others are ‘Consumers’ of the opposite party?

2). Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3). Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in servicetowards the Complainants?

4). Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?

5). Whether the complainants are entitled to relief(s) as prayed for?

DECISION WITH  REASONS

In the light of discussions herein above we find that the following issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

  1).Whether the Complainants Swapan Kundu&27 others is ‘Consumers’ of the opposite party?

                  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainants are “Consumers” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainants herein being the customers of OP by investing money in different schemes, are entitled to get service from the OPs.

 (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainants and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad and cause of action took place at Berhampore, Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.4,71,266.00 and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.        

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              After perusing the Complaint Petition, Evidence on Affidavit and also the documents as filed by these complainants and hearing the arguments as advanced by the agent of the complainants it appears that the complainants deposited sums in different schemes like Redeemable Cumulative Preference Shares of MILANI TECHNO ENGINEERING LIMITED ( Mahanagar Ext,, Lucknow), VAMSHI CHEMICALS LTD.( Naraina, New Delhi), JAIG POLYMERS LTD. (Sultanpur,U.P.) & GEOSHINE MINES 2 METALS LTD(Mahanagar Ext,, Lucknow) and Recurring Deposits before Togo Retail Marketing Limited before the OP No.1. And as per the Xerox copies of documents as produced by the complainants that the name of the card holder is Swapan Kundu (Complainant No.1), Nominee- TamashiKundu , in which there is seal & signature of authorized signatory of MILANI TECHNO ENGINEERING LIMITED& Togo Retail Marketing Limited. From these documents we are in a view that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs 10000/- in 20 equal shares of Rs.500/- each& Rs.15000/- in 30 equal Shares of Rs.500, Rs.5000/- in 5 equal Shares of Rs.1000, Rs.12000/- in 24 equal Shares of Rs.500 and recurring deposit of 10 installments amounting to Rs.20,000/-and similarly other 27 complainants invested in recurring deposits and/or in Redeemable Cumulative Preference Shares. The documents of investment are produced in Xerox copies. But it is not clear whether the complainants received the said matured amount from the OP and how the shares of other than the Togo Retail Marketing Limited are purchased from the OP No.1. The complainants by filing affidavits demanded that the shares other than the Togo Retail Marketing Limited are purchased from the OP No.1 and they did not receive the matured amount till date and as the OP No.1 did not meet demand of the complainants so these complainants getting no alternative filed the instant complaint for getting matured amount including interest and compensation & cost. The complaint petition is unchallenged one as the OP No.1 &2 did not appear and file their written version, so the proceedings run ex-parte against the OP No.1&2. The complainant invested such money in good faith for getting handsome money from the OP No.1 in moderate rate of interest. And after the maturity the OP No.1 did not return the maturity value to these complainants for which these complainants getting no alternative compelled to take the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint. These complainants after the expiry of the period as fixed earlier approached the OP No.1 for getting the matured sum but the OP No.1 did not show good gesture upon the complainants by paying the matured amounts. As such the OPs are deficient in providing service to these complainants and they are also in the charge of unfair trade practice. So the demand of the complainants are valid, cogent and at per but not excessive or exorbitant. So the complainants are entitled to get maturity benefits, including interest @ 10% per annum since date of maturity till the realization and each will get litigation cost of Rs.2000/- from the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the passing this order.

4.  Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainants are able to prove their cases. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to compensate the Complainant as we deem fit and proper.

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?

       As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be ousted and as such the Complainants are entitled to get relief(s).

                Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1, with a litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to each complainant.

              The OP No.2 is exonerated from his liability.

       The Opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to pay the matured amounts plus maturity benefit to each complainant as per their investment, including interest @ 10% since the date of maturity till date of realization and compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental pain & agony to these complainants before the OP No.1 within 45 days from the passing this  final order.

      No other relief (s) is awarded to the complainants.

       The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account for unfair trade practice within 45 days from the date of passing this  final order.

         At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

          Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

          Dictated and corrected by me.

                      Member,                                                                                                 Member.