IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/02/2020
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
06.01.20 14.01.20 29.11.22
Complainant: Felu Bewa @ Phelu Bibi,
W/o – Rahamtulla Sk,
Vill – Babu Para, P.O. Mirzapur,
P.S.-Beldanga,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin- 742190
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.Franchisee Manager,
Sahara India Pariwar
Station Road,
P.O. & P.S.- Beldanga
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742133
2. Sector Manager
Sahara India Pariwar,
Mirabazar, Station road, 1st Floor.
P.O. – Palassy & P.S.- Kaliganj,
Dist- Naida
Pin-741156
3. Regional Manager,
Sahara India Pariwar
Vivekananda Nagar,
Badamtala, P.O & P.S.- Madhyamgram,
Upper Stair of Bank of India,
Kolkata-700129
4. Zonal Manager
Sahara India Pariwar
Sahara India Sadan
2A Shakespeare Sarani
Kolkata-700071
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Srabani Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : N.A.
.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Felu Bewa @ Phelu Bibi (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Station Road, P.O & P.S.- Beldanga & 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 Complainant filed the instant petition stating that she had invested Rs. 13,500/- being Account No. 992057517723, Certificate No. 071022406889, date-21.05.2012. 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 Complainant had also made complaint with the Opposite Parties but every time it 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. 13,500/- + Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony totaling Rs. 63,500/- to the complainant.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices no one present before this Commission to controvert the allegations of the Complainant.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
This point is taken up for consideration. The point to be noted is that the Complainant is absent for long period and no one took part in the hearing of argument of this case on behalf of the complainant. However, we peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer. Such being the position we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
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 she had invested Rs. 13,500/- being Account No. 992057517723, Certificate No. 071022406889, date-21.05.2012. 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 Complainant had also made complaint with the Opposite Parties but every time it 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. 13,500/- + Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony totaling Rs. 63,500/- to the complainant.
The point to be noted is that the Complainant filed the complaint on affidavit and as such the Complainant can be treated both as complaint as well as evidence of the Complainant. In support of her contentions made in the complaint, the Complainant has filed photocopy of the Certificate bearing No. 071022406889 dated 21.05.2022. But it is a matter of regret that the Complainant has not been taking steps since 03.03.2020 and she has not filed the original Certificate bearing No. 071022406889, dated 21.05.2022, the reason is best known to her.
It is further to be noted that notices were served upon O.P. No.s 2 and 4 but they have not turned up.
On the contrary notices were not served upon the O.P. No.s 1 & 3 and in spite of several directions on this Commission the Complainant has not taken any steps for issuance of fresh notices upon the O.P. No.s 1 & 3.
The facts mentioned above i.e., not taking fresh steps for the issuance of notices upon O.P. No.s 1 & 3 and the fact that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period in this case, indicate that the Complainant is not interested in this case and it also indicates that the complaint has no merit.
In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 06.01.20 and admitted on 14.01.20. 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 dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/02/2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest 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 Member President.
