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

                     CASE No.  CC/189/2018

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

   21.12.2018                                            07.01.2019                                      07.12.2023    

Complainant:   Kajirul Sk.

                                S/O Late Jebar Ali

Vill- Chhotkaliai,

P.S.- Raghunathganj,

Dist- Murshidabad

 Pin-742213

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party1.Franchisee Manager,

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Jangipur (6153),  

                        Raghunathganj Hospital Road,

                        Gate No. -1.

                        P.O. & P.S.- Raghunathganj,

Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742225.

                         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.

                        Area Manager,

                        Sahara India Pariwar,

                        Sefali Sadan S.F. Road,

                        P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

                        Dist- Darjeeling,

                        Pin No.- 734005.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             :            

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :            

           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 Kajirul Sk. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Jangipur (6153) & 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. 67,100/- under the plan of “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”]. 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”]. As per petition of the Complaint the aforesaid amounts were matured on the aforesaid dates. But, in spite of proper investment the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the matured 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. 2,07,685/-as maturity amount along with interest and demerge.  

Defence Case

After due service of the notices the O.P.s did not file W/V. to controvert the plea of the Complainant. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.s vide Order No. 4, dated 07.03.2019. 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 Complainants that they filed the instant petition stating that the Complainant  had invested Rs. 21500/-  on  30.05.2012 being Certificate No. 562015412369, having Customer I.D. 861532003309 issued by the O.P.s. The Complainant further invested Rs. 22,800/-  on  23.05.2012 being Certificate No. 562015411745, having Customer I.D. 861532002257 issued by the O.P.s and the Complainant again invested Rs. 22800/-  on  22/05/2012 being Certificate No. 562015411653, having Customer I.D. 861532002156.

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. 562015412369, 562015411745 and 562015411653 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.’

In spite of service of the notices the O.P.s did not file W/V. to controvert the plea of the Complainant. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.s vide Order No. 4, dated 07.03.2019.                     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the Complainant we are of the view that the Complainant deposited different amounts in different dates and the dates of maturity of such investments are different and what would be the total accumulated LBP Benefit is not clear to us.  It is not out of the place to mention that the Complainant filed the instant case claiming his deposited amount as per the terms and condition of the O.Ps. But it is not possible by this Commission to calculate the maturity amounts under “Q SHOP PLAN-H” from the documents filed by the complainants. As per the petition of complaint the complainant in order to get the matured value against his investment visited the office of the OPs. As the O.P.s had not returned the due amount to the complainant on demand so, in our considered view not paying the matured amount falls under deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. So, the Complainant should get the matured amount as per terms and conditions of the certificates issued by the O.P.s    

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 21.12.2018 and admitted on 07.01.2019. 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/189/2019 be and the same is allowed ex-parte 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 amounts 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 6 per cent per annum from the date of the passing of this order till realization. 

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

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

    President

               Member                                                                                                                    President.