DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 221 of 2014
Date of filing: 19.11.2014 Date of disposal: 14.7.2015
Complainant (s): Kalyan Sing, S/o. Biswanath Sing, resident of Purbasa, PO: Mankar, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 148. WB. In respective capacity himself whose certificate is produced as evidence and in respect of:
- Karuna Sarkar, 2. Chandan Show, 3. Madhabi Lohar, 4. Ramlal Lohar, 5. Sukumar Mondal, 6. Shyama Pada Malic, 7. Badal Howladar, 8. Surya Kr. Dey, 9. Dipali Mondal, 10. Chittaranjan Sarkar, 11. Kanai Lal Samanta, 12. Nanda Dulal Ghosh, 13. Pratip Mondal, 14. Tanmoy Santra, 15. Sushanto Sil, 16. Milan Chatterjee, 17. Lalu Bagdi, 18. Mrinal Kanti Dutta, 19. Partha Nath, 20. Samaresh Karmakar, 21. Ujjal Banerjee, 22. Dasarath Dhara, 23. Parul Mondal, 24. Nadu Bagdi, 25. Bulu Bouri, 26. Sadhana Singha, 27. Sukumar Sardar, 28. Dilip Devnath, 29. Tarak Chandra Mondal, 30. Kakali Mondal, 31. Kusum Halder, 32. Ranjit Mete, 33. Tumpa Mete, 34. Binod Mistri, 35. Supriti Das, 36. Sanyasi Majhi, 37. Paritosh Mondal, 38. Jharna Sarkar, 39. Krishna Singh.
-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. 15, 37,360=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. 15,37,360=00 as described in the schedules of the complaint, to pay Rs. 20,000=00 as compensation.
The ld. counsel for the Ops appeared before this ld. Forum on 23.3.2015 by filing vokalatnama. Be it mentioned that after completion of SR date was fixed for filing written version as well as appearance of the Ops. But the Ops were absent on several dates without taking any steps. For this reason this ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for ex parte hearing on 23.3.2015. As the Ops appeared on that date and prayed for setting aside the ex parte hearing order, prayer was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500=00. Next date was fixed on 24.4.2015 for filing written version as a last chance and payment of cost. Since then till 12.6.2015 none was present on behalf of the Ops. For this reason this Forum was pleased to fix the complaint ex parte hearing against the Ops on 14.7.2015 and we are inclined to take up the hearing ex parte against the Ops.
The complainants have filed written notes of argument.
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 40 numbers of consumers who have purchased Recurring Deposits, Fixed Deposits & MIS on different dates and the maturity amount and the date of maturity are also different from each other. Surprisingly it is also evident that the fixed deposit of Nanda Dulal Ghosh will be matured on 28.12.2016. Similarly, another fixed deposit of Nanda Dulal Ghosh, Tarak Chandra Mondal, Ranjit Mete, Tumpa Mete, Sanayasi Majhi, Jharna Sarkar, Kalyan Singh, Krishna Singh will be matured on 30.9.2019, 30.3.2026, 24.3.2016, 26.01.2018, 16.01.2016, 28.02.2017, 27.02.2016 & 03.01.2026 respectively.
In the above premises it could safely be 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.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
