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

                     CASE No.  CC/79/2019

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

   02.07.2019                                         09.07.2019                                        10.05.2023

Complainant:   Bibhsis Das.

                                S/o- Late Netai Chandra Das

                                Vill- Raichandpur,

                                P.O.+ P.S.- Jangipur

                                 Dist- Murhsidabad

                                Pin-742213         

                                                                -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.     

   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 Bibhasis Das (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 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 the Complainant had invested Rs. 9900/- with the O.P.s under the scheme of Sahara.S.Anokha which was monthly basis scheme and the tenure  of the said scheme was 36 months and the monthly installment was Rs. 300/- and accordingly, the O.P.s issued passbook being Account No. 41205600242, Account Opening Date 20.08.2015. The Complainant further stated that he had been approaching the Opposite Parties several times since 20.08.2018 but the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the matured amount.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission 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 term was over on 20.08.2018 and the Complainant never submitted any documents to the O.P.s which are 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 he had invested Rs. 9900/- with the O.P.s under the scheme of Sahara.S.Anokha which was monthly basis scheme and the tenure of the said scheme was 36 months and the monthly installment was Rs. 300/- and accordingly, the O.P.s issued passbook being Account No. 41205600242, Account Opening Date 20.08.2015. 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 passbook being No. 4440 and it is also evident from said passbook that the Complainant had invested Rs. 9900/-. It appears from the passbook being Account No. 41205600242 that the Complainant has paid 31 installments out of 36 installments.

The Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s stated in the W/V that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt petitioner © No. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813/2011 with contempt petition (Civil) No. 413 of 2012 in C/A No. 9833/2011 (SEBI us Sahara India Real Estate Company Ltd & others) passed on 21.11.2013 wherein following order has been passed:-

“ We are Convinced that the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit in such circumstance, we direct that the Sahara Group of Companies shall not…. with any movable and immovable properties until further orders”.

In the instant case we find that the Complainant had paid Rs. 9900/- in 31 installments but the terms and conditions of the investment policy shows that the Complainant had to paid Rs. 300/- in each installments and the total number of installment was 36. Prima facie we find that the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the scheme of Sahara.S.Anokha. It is further to be noted is that the Complainant has not filed any original documents.

The record shows that the following dates were fixed for hearing of argument.

27.07.2020, 16.10.2020, 06.01.2021, 23.02.2021, 12.04.2021, 30.11.2021, 19.05.2022, 04.07.2022, 27.09.2022, 19.01.2023 and today i.e., 10.05.2023.

But it is a matter of regret that the Complainant was absent on those dates. It is the clear indication that the Complainant is not at all interested in the instant case. It is also the clear indication that the Complainant case has no merit. Consequently, the instant case is liable to be dismissed on merit.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 02.07.2019 and admitted on 09.07.2019. 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 failed.           

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is    

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/79/2019 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

 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.