DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 223 of 2014
Date of filing: 19.11.2014 Date of disposal: 08.7.2015
Complainant (s): Jiban Kumar Chatterjee, S/o. Late Taraprasanna Chatterjee, resident of B.B. Ghosh Road, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101, WB.
whose certificate is produced as evidence and in respect of:
- Kantab Ray, 2. Sk. Hakim Mondal, 3. Kashid Khan, 4. Sekh Jafar Ali, 5. Luthfa Bibi, 6. Phiroj Khan, 7. Gangadhar Pal, 8. Mithun Roy, 9. Sonowar Molla, 10. Jhonoka Bed, 11. Jayanti Pasi, 12. Raju Roy, 13. Chandranath Bhattacharjee, 14. Maya Rani Debnath, 15. Kali Sankar Banerjee, 16. Sk. Nuralam, 17. Babulal Chatterjee, 18. Partha Rakshit, 19. Ram Bagdi, 20. Uday Bagdi, 21. Babu Kumar Nag, 22. Ujjala Bagdi, 23. Sukumar Bagdi, 24. Manjusri Chatterjee, 25. Nani Bagdi, 26. Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee, 27. Tapas Bagdi, 28. Mahadeb Bagdi, 29. Saraswati Mukherjee, 30. Shyam Bagdi, 31. Manasi Chatterjee, 32. Tapas Bagdi, 33. Swapan Bagdi, 34. Sima Bagdi, 35. Archana Choudhury, 36. Tapasi Das, 37. Suchitra Chatterjee, 38. Lipika Konar, 39. Tanmaya Das, 40. Lakshmi Kanta Pal, 41. Tanaya Das, 42. Nibas Lohar, 43. Muktadhar Pal, 44. Dhurjati Prasad Goswami, 45. Rajyasri Acharya, 46. Sukumar Ghosh, 47. Pravakar Karmakar.
-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.
2. still functioning under the name & style “Goldmine Group of Companies” at Subodh Smriti Road, PO & PS: Katwa, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 330, W.B.
Represented by:
3. Bablu Saha, S/o. Mantulal Saha (Managing Director), Milon Park, Balagarh, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
4. Joydip Mukherjee, S/o. Umapada Mukherjee (Executive Director), Talarpar Kulti Road, Panduah, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Sri Durga Sankar Das.
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. 18, 45,860=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. 18, 45,860=00 as described in the schedules of the complaint, to pay Rs. 1,00,000=00 as compensation etc. and the complainant has prayed for Rs. 20,00,000=00 in total along with the decreetal amount, compensation, mental agony and loss of daily wages.
The ld. counsel for the Ops appeared before this ld. Forum undertook for filing vokalatnama as well as written version on the next date. But till 24.02.2015 as no vokalatnama was filed on behalf of the Ops along with written version hence the case was running ex parte against the Ops. On 23.3.2015 ld. counsel for the Ops appearing before this ld. Forum filed vokalatnama and prayed for set aside the ex parte hearing order. Prayer was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/- and opportunity was given to the Ops for filing written version as a last chance on 24.4.2015. But on the said date none was present on behalf of the Ops and cost also did not paid. For this reason the ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for ex parte hearing on 14.5.2015. Since then the Ops did not turn up. For this reason we are inclined to take up the hearing of this complaint ex parte against the Ops.
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 19.11.2014 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 48 numbers of consumers who had separate Recurring Deposits, MIS and Fixed 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. Surprisingly it is also evident that in some cases the amount has not yet been matured. As for instance the fixed deposits of some cases the amount has not yet been matured. As for instance the fixed deposits of Muktadhar Pal will be matured on 20.9.2017 where this case was filed on 19.11.2014. Similarly, the fixed deposits of Kashid Khan, Dhurjati Prasad Goswami, Rajyasri Acharya, Subuwar Ghosh, Kartab Roy, Sekh Jarari, Luthfa Bibi, Phiroj Khan, Gangadhar Pal, Mithun Roy, Soudwar Molla, Jhonoka Bed, Jayanti Phasi, Raju Ray, Chandranath Bhattacharya, Maya Rani Debnath, Kali Sankar Banerjee be matured on 29.5.2023, 09.7.2027, 27.5.2027, 19.6.2027, 19.7.2027, 04.10.2015, 30.9.2015, 21.11.2015, 30.10.2019, 14.3.2025, 19.11.2019, 29.8.2021, 21.3.2018, 30.10.2018, 30.3.2020, 13.11.2019, 10.11.2019, 30.10.2019, 21.7.2026, 19.11.2019, 04.3.2017, 13.11.2019 respectively. So, in those cases the cause of action has not yet been commenced. In this aspect the complaint is premature one. In the above premises it could be safely said that the complaints’ interest was 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 charge.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Durga Sankar Das)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Durga Sankar Das)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
