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

                                                 CASE No.  CC/46/2019

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

   18.03.2019                                          26.03.2019                                          01.02.2023

Complainant:  1.  Sayera Bibi

                          W/O Majibur Sk,

             Vill-Shiumulia,

           PO-Maya, PS-Lalgola, Pin-742148

2. Miliara Bibi

W/O Amirul Islam,

Vill-Babupara, PO-Gangaprasad,

 PS-Raghunathganj, Pin-742213

3. Nabina Khatun

M/O Katbanu Bewa,

Vill&PO-Dafarpur,

PS-Raghunathganj, Pin-742227

4. Jansad Sk

S/O Matleb Sk, Vill&PO-Dafarpur,

PS-Raghunathganj, Pin-742227

5. Nazrul Sk.

S/O Isha Sk, Vill&PO-Dafarpur,

PS-Raghunathganj, PIn-742227

6. Najera Bibi

W/O Morjem Sk, Vill-Kantakhali,

 PO-Khamra, PS-Raghunathganj,

Pin-742148

7. Ayesha Khatun

D/O Taj Hossain, Vill-Raghunatpur,

PO-Jangipur, PS-Raghunathganj,

 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.

                        4. Area Manager

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Sefali Sadan S.F.Road

                        P.O.-Siliguri

                        P.S.-Siliguri

                        Dist-Darjeeling, Pin No- 734005

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             :                    Monohar Mitra

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :           Saugata Biswas

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

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

   Sri. Nittananda Roy………………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY,  MEMBER

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

One Sayera Bibi and Ors. (here in after referred to as the Complainants) 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 Rs. 1,88,200/- 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 complainants filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 4,43,086/- maturity amount along with interest to the complainants along with litigation cost.

Defence Case

After due service of the notices O.P.s did not appear to controvert the plea of the Complainants. So the case proceeded ex-parte against the OPs.

Points for decision

1. Are the Complainants consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Are the Complainants 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 Complainants are  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 No. 1, Sayra Bibi had invested Rs.90,900/- on 31.08.12 being Account No. 861532001265, Complainant No. 2, Miliara Bibi had invested Rs. 13,550/- on 21.05.12 being account No. 861532002048, and Rs. 17,650/- on 23.05.12 being account No. 861532002247, Complainant No. 3, Nabina Khatun had invested Rs. 11,600/- on 05.09.12 being account No. 61532002559,  Complainant No. 4, Jansad Sk had invested Rs. 9,400/- on 27.06.12 being account No. 861532005253, and Rs. 9,400/- on 28.06.12 being account No. 861532005339, Complainant No. 5, Nazrul Sk had invested Rs. 6,700/- on 27.06.12 being account No. 861532005217, and Rs. 6,700/- on 29.06.12 being account No. 861532007808, Complainant No. 6,  Najera Bibi had invested Rs. 8,250/- on 20.06.12 being account No. 861532004722, Complainant No. 7, Ayesha Kahatun had invested Rs. 14,050/- on 24.05.12  being account No. 861532002389.

The point to be noted is that the Complainants filed the evidence on affidavit in support of their contentions made in the complaint, the Complainants had filed photocopies of the Certificates bearing Nos. 562015415149, 562015411553, 562015411735, 562003983568, 562015413135, 562015413199, 562015413101, 562015413361, 562015412679 and 562015411848. It is evident from said Certificates that the Complainants had invested different  amounts ‘under “Q Shop Plan-H” ( “PLAN-H”) for the period as per terms and conditions of the plan. As per the certificates ‘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.

The OPs did not appear on due service of the notice and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the Complainants and the argument advanced the Ld. Counsel of the Complainants we are of the view  that  there are  numerous Complainants and their deposited amounts are different and the dates of maturity of such investments are different and what would be the total accumulated LBP Benefit is not clear to us.  The complainants had invested different amounts on different dates for their financial gain. It is not out of the place to mention that they had filed the instant case claiming their deposited amount as per the terms and condition of the certificates issued by the O.Ps against their investments. But it is not possible to calculate the rate of interest under “Q SHOP PLAN-H” from the documents filed by the complainants and to specify their maturity values against such investments. Moreover, the complainants had not filed any original documents till date to show their investments. As per the petition of complaint the complainants in order to get the matured value against their investment visited the office of the Ops. The petition is supported by affidavit so there is little scope to disbelieve it. As the O.P.s had not returned the due amounts to the complainants 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 Complainants should get the matured amount as per terms and conditions of the certificate issued by the O.P.s.    

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 18.03.2019 and admitted on 26.03.2019. 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/46/2019 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 matured amount as per terms and conditions of the certificates 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 5 per cent per annum from the date of the passing of this order.  

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.