IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/13/2020
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
24.01.2020 10.02.2020 21.12.2023
Complainant: Kajal Maitra
S/o- Saroj Maitra,
Ghoshpara,
P.O.- Chalita, P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742165
-Vs-
Opposite Party1.Franchisee Manager,
Sahara India Pariwar,
Swarnomayee Bazar,
Abhudyay Sangha,
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742101
2. Hamara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited,
Mangal Jyoti, 101, 227/2 A.J.C. Bose Road,
Kolkata, Pin No- 700020.
3. The Zonal Mnager, Shara India Pariwar,
Sahara India Sadan, 2A Shakespeare Sarani,
Kolkata-700071.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Srabani Das
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 Kajal Maitra (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar & 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 had invested his hard earned money with the O.P.s in their Golden VM-36 scheme on 09.09.2016 amounting Rs. 33,759/-. In spite of proper investment the O.P.s had denied to pay the matured amount after the maturity date on 09.09.2019 as mentioned in the Certificate. Several times this Complainant had approached O.P.s but every time the claim of the Complainant was denied.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 33,759/- + Rs,1,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony totaling Rs. 1,33,759/- to the Complainant.
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.
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 he filed the instant petition stating that he had invested his money with the O.P.s in their Golden VM-36 scheme on 09.09.2016 amounting Rs. 33,759/-. In spite of proper investment the O.P.s had denied to pay the matured amount after the maturity date on 09.09.2019 as mentioned in the Certificate. In spite of proper investment the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the matured amount. The Complainant several times approached the Opposite Parties but failed.
The point to be noted is that the Complainant filed the evidence on affidavit. In support of his contentions made in the complaint, the Complainant has filed photocopies of the Certificates bearing Nos. 605001646745, dated-09.09.2019 and produces the original certificates. It is evident from said Certificates that the Complainant had invested said amount ‘under Golden VM-36 scheme’ for the period as per terms and conditions of the plan.
The Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s submitted that the order may be passed in favour of the Complainant on condition that the Complainant should produce the original certificate before the O.P.s at the time of demanding the payment.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the Complainant and the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties we are of the view that the Complainant has able to prove his case regarding the investment. As the O.P.s had not returned the due amount to the complainant on demand, here lies the deficiency 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 on production of the original documents.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 24.01.2020 and admitted on 10.02.2020. 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/13/2020 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 maturity amount of Rs. 51854/- along with the interest payable as per the terms and conditions of the Certificate 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 5 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.
