IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/38/2020

 Date of Filing:                                   Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

    26.02.2020                                              04.03.2020                              03.06.24

Complainant:Machhlima Khatun,

                                D/o- Ajim Ali,

                                W/o- Ajemali Mallik,

                                Vill – Mallikpara Dalua, P.O.- Dalua,

                                P.S.-Beldanga,

                                 Dist- Murhsidabad

                                Pin-742123         

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party1.Franchisee Manager,

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Beldanga F.C. 16126154, Station Road,

                        Beldanga, P.O. & P.S. Beldanga,

                        Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742133

                        2. Zonal Manager

                        Sahara India Pariwar,

                        Sahara India Sadan,

                        2A Shakespeare Sarani,

                        Kolkata-700007.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             :           Aditya Nath Upapadhyay

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :           Saugata Biswas

Present:  Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.

 Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Machhlima Khatun (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Beldanga F.C. 16126154 & Ors.(here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant filed the instant petition stating that she had invested Rs. 7,150/-, date-29.05.2012, Certificate No. 562009609791 and Rs. 7,150/- date 25.05.2012, Certificate No. 562009609567 respectively to the O.P.s. The O.P.s undertook to pay interest of the invested amount as per the terms and conditions of the plan under “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”]. But, in spite of proper investment the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the matured amount. The Complainant several times approached the Opposite Partiesbut in vain.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for appropriate relief.

Defence Case

After due service of the notices O.P.s appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as it is not true that the Complainant many a time requested the O.P. to pay the mature value of his claim. Or that the O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. Or that the OPs did not pay any amount to the Complainant. Or that the Complaint is bound to file this Complaint case against the O.P. and the Complainant never submitted any documents to the O.P.s which were necessary for liquidation of matured amount. So, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.s

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point Nos. 2 & 3

Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

It is the case of the Complainant that she filed the instant petition stating that she had investedRs. 7,150/-, date-29.05.2012, Certificate No. 562009609791 and Rs. 7,150/- date 25.05.2012, Certificate No. 562009609567 respectively to the O.P.s.  The O.P.s undertook to pay interest of the invested amount as per the terms and conditions of the plan under “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”].   In spite of proper investment the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the matured amount. The Complainant several times approached the Opposite Partiesbut in vain.

The point to be noted is that the Complainant filed the evidence on affidavit.  In support of her contentions made in the complaint, the Complainant has filed photocopies of the Certificates bearing Certificate No. 562009609791 and certificate no.  562009609567  respectively.It is evident from said Certificates that the Complainant had invested said amount ‘under “Q Shop Plan-H” ( “PLAN-H”) for the period as per terms and conditions of the plan. Total Accumulated LBP Benefit will be 2.13/2.26/2.35/3.84/3.97/4.06 times of Global Advance and it is based on certain/specific consumption pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products.’

The Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s stated in the W/V that the case is not maintainable as it is not true that the Complainant many a time requested the O.P. to pay the mature value of his claim. Or that the O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. Or that the OPs did not pay any amount to the Complainant. Or that the Complainant is bound to file this Complaint case against the O.P. and the Complainant never submitted any documents to the O.P.s which were necessary for liquidation of matured amount. So, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.s

The point to be noted is that OPs were given several opportunities for filing evidence but they have not filed the same till today. On 21.05.24 both parties were found absent on call. Similarly today both the parties are also found absent on call. It is a case of the year 2020. Such being the position, the case is required to be disposed of on the basis of the materials on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the Complainant, we are of the view that the Complainant has able to prove her case regarding the investment but what would be the total accumulated LBP Benefit is not clear to us. As the O.P.s had not returned the due amount to the complainant on demand and here lies the deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.s So, the Complainant should get the matured amount as per terms and conditions of the certificate issued by the O.P.s

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 26.02.2020 and admitted on 04.03.2020. This Commission 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 orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.        

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/38/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

The O.P.s are directed to pay the principal amount of Rs. 7,150/- + Rs. 7,150/- =totaling Rs. 14,300/-along with the interest payable as per the terms and conditions of the Certificates issued by them on production of the original documents.

The aforesaid order must be complied with within 120 days from the date of passing of this order.  If the aforesaid order is not complied with within the stipulated period it will carry an interest @ of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the passing of this order.

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.

President

Member                                                                            President.