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

                     CASE No.  CC/97/2019

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

   24.07.2019                                            05.08.2019                                       03.10.2023     

Complainant:        Jyoti Prosanna Singha

                                S/O Laxman Prayad Singha

                  Kanaiganj,

                P.O. & P.S.- Jiaganj,

              Dist- Murshidabad

               Pin-742123

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party1.Franchisee Manager,

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Jiaganj (4120),  

                        High School Para, Jiaganj

                        P.O. & P.S. Jiagang,

Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742123.

                         2. Sector Manager

                        Sahara India Pariwar,

                        Swarnomayee Bazar,

                        Station Road,

                        P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore

                        Dist- Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

                        3. Zonal Manager

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Sahara India Sadan

                        2A Shakespeare Sarani,

                        Kolkata-700071.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        :           None

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :           Saugata Biswas

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

                             Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

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

FINAL ORDER

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY,  member.

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

One Jyoti Prasanna Singha (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Jiaganj (4120) & Ors. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

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

The Complainants filed the instant petition stating that they had invested total Rs. 59250/- under the plan of “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”] and Rs. 24000/- under the Plan E. Shine. The synopsis of their plans are given below:-

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”] and the Plan E. Shine. But, in spite of proper investment the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the claimed amount. The Complainants several times approached the Opposite Parties but failed.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 246235/-as claimed amount along with interest and compensation.  

Defense 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 purchased Certificate No. 816102003061, 816102003423, 816102003435, 816102003480, 816102003498, 16103703599, 16103703600 and 16103703601  these are matured on 09/06/2018 which amounts a sum of Rs. 83,250/- from the O.P.s and the Complainant never submitted any documents in spite of repeated demands to show  the ownership of the account mentioned in the complaint  which can be ascertained by the O.P.s for liquidation of the matured amount.  So, the O.P.s prayed for dismissal of the case as there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency of service on their part.

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant 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 has filed the instant petition stating that the Complainant had invested Rs. 24000 /- under E Shine Plan and Rs. 59250/- under “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”]  the O.P.s issued certificates against all the investments.

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 being Nos . 816102003061, 816102003423, 816102003435, 816102003480, 816102003498, 16103703599, 16103703600 and 16103703601.  

O.P.s in the W/V stated that the Complainant filed this complaint to gain some extra money as because in spite of repeated demands of production of the original documents made by the O.P.s to ascertain ownership of the accounts and liquidation of the pre matured/ matured amount, the Complainant never submitted any original documents.

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 his case regarding the investment. But as the O.P.s had not returned the due amount to the complainant on demand, so in our considered view here lies the deficiency on the part of the O.P.s. Though the Complainant claimed pre-matured amount  but at the time of passing the final order it appears that all these certificates arrived at the date of the maturity. So, we are of the view that along with all other investments the Complainant should also get the matured amount against his investments as per terms and conditions of all the certificates issued by the O.P.s.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 24.07.2019 and admitted on 05.08.2019. 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/97/2019 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 value of the Certificates issued by them on production of the original documents within 120 days from the date of passing this order.

The O.P.s are further directed to pay 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of maturity to till payment.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

    Member

   Member                                                         Member                                                         President.