IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/77/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
25.06.2019 09.09.2019 11.05.2023
Complainant: Rathindranath Sarkar
S/o- Ramen Sarkar
Kashiganj, Debipur,
P.O.-+ P.S.- Jiaganj
Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742123 (W.B.)
-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 : None
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 Rathindranath Sarkar (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 he had invested as per the following charts:-
Name | Sl No. | Scheme Name | Account No. | Date of Investment | Date of Maturity | Pre Matured/Matured Amt. |
Ramen Sarkar (Complainant) | 1 | Sahara Super | 41205100476 | 13/11/2014 | 13/03/2018 | 12360/- |
2 | Sahara Super | 41205100477 | 13/11/2014 | 13/03/2018 | 12360/- |
3 | Sahara Super | 41205100478 | 13/11/2014 | 13/03/2018 | 12360/- |
3 | Sahara Y Select | 41207200054 | 11/05/2018 | 11/05/2019 | 5450/- |
| | | | Total Amount | 42530/- |
The O.P.s undertook to pay interest on the invested amount as per the terms and conditions of the plan under “Sahara Super” & “Sahara Y-Select”. 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 Complainant 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 Parties to pay Rs. 45630/- as maturity amount along with compensation towards harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices the O.P.s did not file the W/V to controvert the plea of the Complainant. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.s vide Order No. 5, dated 02.09.2019.
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 totaling Rs.34080/- in three (3) Sahara Super monthly scheme and Rs. 5000/- in Sahara .Y. Select Scheme of the O.P.s. 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 had filed the evidence on affidavit. In support of his contentions made in the complaint, the Complainant also filed photocopies of the documents. But the Complainant had not produced the original documents before this Commission at the time of argument.
After due service of the notices the O.P.s did not file the W/V to controvert the plea of the Complainant for the reason best known to them. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.s vide vide Order No. 5, dated 02.09.2019.
Considering the materials on record we find that the Complainant invested in the monthly Scheme amounting of Rs. 10 per month for the tenure of 40 months vide Account No. – 41205100476, 41205100477 and 41205100478 respectively but the documents did not reflect the same as because as per the Xerox copies of the three passbooks the Complainant deposited Rs. 10 on 13.11.2014 and on 18.12.2014 Complainant deposited Rs. 290 and total amount became Rs. 300/-. It is not believable. So, prima facie there is no similarity between the scheme of the O.P.s and the Xerox copies of the documents filed by the Complainant. More over the Complainant is absent on the date of hearing and no one is there to clarify the same. So, the case is liable to be dismissed for want of proper documents and clarifications.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 25.06.2019 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/77/2019 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.
Member
Member Member President.
