DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 203 of 2014
Date of filing: 16.10.2014 Date of disposal: 31.7.2015
Complainant (s): 1. Anjan Mallick, S/o. Late Abani Mohan Mallick 2. Mohan Mallick, resident of Burir Bagan, P.O. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101, WB. In respective capacity himself whose certificate is produced as evidence and in respect of:
3. Pratima Jash.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party (s): 1.Goldmine Group of Companies along the sister companies Agro & Industry, 2/2A Dr. S. S. Sankar Road, PS: Entally, Gupta House, 2nd Floor – 700 014 – KOLKATA.
- Bablu Saha, S/o. Mantulal Saha (Managing Director), Milon Park, Balagarh, Hooghly, PIN – 712 014.
- Joydip Mukherjee, S/o. Umapada Mukherjee (Executive Director), Talarpar Kulti Road, Panduah, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant (s): Ld. Advocate, Bikas Kumar Roy.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Dipak Chowdhury.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint has been filed by the complainants (numerous consumers) u/S. 12 (1)(c) 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 the amount deposited by them till the filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the complainants is that being an ordinary common people the complainants wanted to make more money through their savings in a peaceful manner in order to maintain their daily life. For this reason they deposited their entire savings in the projects of the Ops. who assured to refund the principal amount along with sufficient amount as interest. On maturity of those policies the complainants approached the Ops. repeatedly for refund of the entire amount along with interest. The Ops on various pretext delayed. Ultimately they did not refund the money and failed to keep their promises. Finding no other alternative the complainants were forced to come before this Forum for relief. The Ops are not at all willing to return the money and to keep their promise. It is nothing but an unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. for squeezing hard earn money of the complainants. For this unfair trade practice, the complainants have lost their entire savings and they have been suffering irreparable loss and injury with mental agony and harassment. The complainants are entitled to get deposited amount along with interest amounting to Rs. 2,34,304=00. The complainants are also entitled to get compensation for their day to day loss, mental agony and harassment. By filing this complaint the complainants have prayed for an award directing the O.Ps. to repay the entire money as deposited by them along with interest to the tune of Rs. 2,34,304=00 as described in the schedules of the complaint, to pay Rs. 40,000=00 as compensation and complainant has prayed for Rs.4,00000=00 in total along with decretal amount, compensation, mental agony and loss of daily wages.
The ld. counsel for the Ops appeared before this ld. Forum on 22.12.2014 by filing vokalatnama and prayed time for filing written version. On 20.1.2015 the O.Ps. were absent on call. On 26.2.2015 the ld. Counsel for the O.Ps. filed a petition praying further date for filing written version and accordingly prayer was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. On 30.3.2015 though cost paid but further adjournment petition was filed prying time for filing written version. On 12.5.2015 though it was fixed for filing written version by the O.Ps., no steps was taken and for this reason this ld. Forum was pleased to fixed ex-parte hearing. Ultimately 30.7.2015 was fixed for ex-parte hearing and as none was present on behalf of the O.P.s we took up the hearing of the complaint ex-parte against the O.Ps.
Complainants are present by filing hazira. We have heard the complaint from the ld. Counsel for the complainants.
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove their specific case, the complainants have relied upon the contents of complaint, photo copies of their savings certificates without the reverse page of the same and written notes of argument.
We have carefully perused the materials on record including the documents filed by the complainants and written notes of argument. At the very outset it is found on record that this complaint was filed before this Forum on 25.11.2014 along with a petition u/S. 12 (1) (c) of the C.P. Act, 1986. But the said petition was not moved by the complainants and accordingly no order was passed granting permission as prescribed in Section 12 (1) (c) C.P. Act, 1986 which provides “a complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumer having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumer so interested……….” This fact clearly shows that the specific provision of sub-section of Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been violated and accordingly this case defective one.
To avoid complications we like to discuss the points whether all the complainants had same interest in the matter of bring this dispute. To decide this point, we have taken into consideration the schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ of the complaint. It is not disputed that the instant complaint was filed by 3 numbers of consumers who had separate Recurring Deposits with the O.Ps. and the dates of deposits and dates of maturity of those deposits are quite different from each other and plans for the said deposits are also different. In the above premises it could be safely said that the complainants’ interest are not same. In view of the discussions we are of the opinion that the present complaint hits the provisions of Section-12(1) (c) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly the present complaint is not tenable. It is also evident from the photo copies of the said policy certificates that the name of the company, as well as, the address of the company has not been properly mentioned in the cause title. The addresses and the names of the Ops as given in the complaint are not tallying with the addresses and the names of the Ops as mentioned the policy certificates. Therefore, the complaint itself suffers from several lacunas.
In view of the discussion held in foregoing lines, the complaint fails.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint case is dismissed ex parte against the Ops without any cost.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
