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

                     CASE No.  CC/114/2019

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

   26.08.2019                                          16.09.2019                                       11.05.2023  

Complainant:   Uttam Pramanik

                                S/o- Late Pankaj Pramanik

                                Kanaiganj, Word-16,

                                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                  :           Saugata Biswas

           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 Uttam Pramanik (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 total Rs. 42700/- under the plan of “ Sahara Minor”. The synopsis of his plans are given below:-

The O.P.s undertook to pay interest on the invested amount as per the terms and conditions of the plan under “ Sahara Minor”. 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. 28300/- 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. 7, dated 19.11.2019.

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 Rs.13950+ Rs.2800+ Rs.7500 totaling Rs. 24250/- in the Scheme of “Sahara Minor” 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. 

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 Order No. 7, dated 19.11.2019.

It appears from the case record that he has invested the amount in the monthly scheme but the Complainant had not submitted the photocopies of the documents showing that he had deposited amounts month by month nor he had produced the original documents before this Commission and it is also a matter of regret that the Complainant was absent on the various dates of argument. So, it is the clear indication that the Complainant is not at all interested in the instant case. Consequently, we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed due to want of proper documents.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 26.08.2019 and admitted on 16.09.2019. 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/114/2019 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.