Consumer Complaint No. 182 of 2014
Date of filing: 22.9.2014 Date of disposal: 05.9.2016
Complainant: Mamata Chatterjee, W/o. Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, Village: Madhya Mankar, PO: Mankar, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 144, W.B.
In respective capacity against herself whose certificate is produced as evidence and in respect of:
- Kanu Bagdi, (ii) Kartick Chanda Pal, (iii) Sajal Kumar Bandyopadhyay, (iv) Sumanta Mukherjee, (v) Kanchan Chatterjee.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Gold Mine Group of Companies Pvt. Ltd., 2/2A Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 014. Represented by Bablu Saha, S/o. Montulal Saha (Managing Director), Milan Park, Balagarh, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
2. The Branch Office of Gold Mine Group of Companies Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & PO: Budbud Bazar, Burdwan (near State Bank A.t.M.), District: Burdwan. Represented by Bablu Saha, S/o. Montulal Saha (Managing Director), Milan Park, Balagarh, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Bikasah Kumar Roy.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Dipak Chowdhury.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainants u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not refund them their maturity amount in respect of several accounts.
The brief fact of the case of the complainants is that being an ordinary common people the complainants wanted to make more money through savings through peaceful manner in order to maintain the daily life of him and his family in an easy manner. For that reason to make more savings with a good interest the complainants deposited entire savings in the projects of the OPs. Against those deposits the Ops issued documents wherein assurance was given to the complainants that they will be entitled to get their money back with the interest as per the terms of the policy. After maturity of the policy when the complainants claimed the maturity amount from the Ops on several occasions, the Ops have failed to keep their promises stating that they are not willing to return the maturity amount to the complainants. According to the complainants such action of the Ops can easily be termed as unfair trade practice and due to such practice the complainants have lost their entire savings which created irreparable loss and injury along with mental agony. The complainants availed of the services of the Ops personally exclusively for the purpose of maintaining their livelihood. As their grievance has not been redressed by the Ops, having no alternative have approached before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Ops to return the maturity amount of Rs. 19, 73,682=00 to the complainant.
After admission of the complaint notices were issued to the Ops through this ld. Forum. On 27.5.2016 the Ops have filed vokalatnama and prayed time for filing written version. Prayer was allowed and date was fixed on 22.6.2016 for filing written version by the Ops. On 22.6.2016 as none was appeared on behalf of the Ops and in the meantime the statutory period for filing written version as per the C.P. Act has already been elapsed, hence this Forum was pleased to fix hearing of the complaint ex parte against the Ops. During final hearing on 23.8.2016 none was present on behalf of the Ops. Therefore, we take up the hearing of the complaint ex parte against the Ops.
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint and several documents i.e. certificates and A/c. Payee cheques as annexed by the complainants along with petition of complaint and heard argument from the ld. Counsel for the complainant at length. It is seen by us that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainants as the maturity amount in respect of several MIS accounts were not paid by the Ops after its maturity. It is seen by us that the MIS account being no. G-012472 in the name of name of Kanu Bagdi amounting to Rs. 1,00,000=00 which was matured on 27.9.2013 the Ops have issued an A/c. Payee cheque in favour of Mr. Bagdi on 27.9.2013 but the same was not deposited by the investor for encashment. The MIS accounts in the name of Kartick Chandra Pal being No.G-022290 & G-022228 which were matured on 28.11.2013 & 05.10.2013 respectively for Rs. 1,50,000=00 & Rs. 50,000=00, the Op have issued two separate cheques in favour of Mr. Pal dated 28.11.2013 & 05.10.2013 but those cheques were not deposited by Mr. Pal for encashment. In respect of several MIS Account Nos. of Smt. Mamata Chatterjee being Nos. G-022113, G-022091, H-391313, H-263532 & H-371196 which were matured on 10.3.2014, 29.3.2014, 03.11.2013, 01.12.2013 & 20.4.2014 for Rs. 3,36,000 + Rs. 33,600, Rs. 6,72,000 + Rs. 73,920, Rs. 13,440, Rs. 26,880, Rs. 13,440. It is seen by us from the documents that A/c. payee cheques to the tune of Rs. 3,360 dated 10.6.2013, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.7.2013, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.8.2013, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.9.2013, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.10.2013, Rs. 3,360, dated 10.11.2013, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.12.2013, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.01.2014, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.02.2014, Rs. 3,360 dated 10.3.2014, Rs. 6,720 dated 29.5.2013, 29.6.2013, 29.7.2013, 29.8.2013, 29.9.2013, 29.10.2013, 29.11.2013, 29.12.2013, 29.01.2014, 29.02.2014 & 29.3.2014 were issued in the name of Mrs. Chatterjee but those cheques were not deposited by her for encashment. Though it is mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ of the MIS accounts of Mr. Sumanta Mukherjee, Kanchan Chatterjee etc. but no documents have been adduced in those names. Therefore, we cannot pass any order in respect of Mr. Sumanta Mukherjee & Mr. Kanchan Chatterjee.
Going by the foregoing discussion it can easily be said that though the Ops have issued
A/c. payee cheques in the name of the complainants to the tune of the maturity amount along with interest, but those cheques were not deposited by the complainants for encashment as mentioned earlier. Therefore, for such non- encashment of the amount due to non-depositing the same, liability cannot be put upon the shoulders of the Ops because the Ops have duly discharged their liabilities by issuing the cheques. Whether those cheques will be encashed or not that is the sole discretion of the complainants. It is seen by us that there are several laches on the part of the complainants and for such laches of the complainants the Ops should not be penalized. During hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainants has submitted that as he heard that several cheques of other depositors were bounced, they choose not to deposit the cheques issued by the Ops in their favour. Such stand/plea cannot save the complainants and we cannot pass any order in favour of the complainants because the complainants had acted on assumption and presumption basis. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as sought for from this ld. Forum.
As the complainants have miserably failed to prove their case by adducing convincing evidence, hence the complaint fails. Accordingly, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint being no. 181/2014 is hereby dismissed ex parte against the Ops without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
