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

                CASE No.  CC/165/2018.

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

   29.10.18                                        22.11.18                                   04.07.22

Complainant: 1. Nur Amin Seikh

S/O Lt. Ekram Seikh, Vill-Bhandara,

P.O.-Bhandara,P.S.-Ranitala,

Pin-742123

 2. Nasima Bibi

                        W/o Late Mainul Haque

                        Vill-Teghari Biswaspara

                        PO-Rajput Teghari

                        PS-Raghunathganj

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742213

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  Mahir Seikh @ Seikh Mahirul Islam

                        S/o Sayed Seikh

                        Vill-Kanaipur

                        PO-Bataspur

                        PS-Sainthia

                        Dist-Birbhum

                        Pin-731201

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Subhanjan Sengupta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     : Prabir Kr. Banerjee

   Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

        Sri. Subir Sinha Ray……………………………….Member.                        

                     Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

 Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Nur Amin Seikh and Anr. (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against Mahir Seikh (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant is a permanent resident of the address given and the Complainant No.1 is a tailor and the Complainant No.2 is a housewife and that are their only livelihood.

            Complainant No.2 is the distressed widow of Mainul Haque who had passed away as was cheated by the OP.

            The Complainant No. 1 and the husband of Complainant No.2 were promised by the OP that he would give them job at Dubai with a good salary per month and with all facilities. They agreed and it was contracted that they would have to pay Rs.3,60,000/- in total and accordingly they paid. The OP assured them that their tickets were booked and their scheduled departure was on 15.11.15. Accordingly when the Complainants had prepared themselves for their new venture and the OP informed them that their work at Dubai would be with a Multi National Company. But when the Complainants were about to their way at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Airport  at Kolkata they were informed by the OP that their tickets were cancelled. They came back and chased the OP and demanded for refund of their money which they had given. The OP on 30.10.16 admitted the entire fact in front of the witnesses and promised to pay back the money. But till date the OP kept mum about the return of the money which he had taken from the Complainants and had cheated them.

            The OP is in a motive to somehow deceit these Complainants.

            The Complainants approached the OP for proper redress and prayed for the proper remedy. But instead the OP showed inattention towards these Complainants and thus misbehaved with the Complainants.

            The OP instead of meeting the valid demands of the Complainants is trying to harass these Complainants and the Complainants also approached for times without number to the OP praying for the proper remedy which the OP was supposed to do but he paid no heed to their cry.

            The OP all over clearly proves his intention to commit and perpetuate fraud practice on the Complainants. Moreover, the act of the OP is a glaring example of deficiency in service which clearly falls under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as amended till day.

            Finding no other alternative the Complainants Filed this instant application for proper redress against the OP.

Defence Case

            The OP is contesting this case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The averments made in the complaint are fictitious, imaginary, manufactured and concocted story.

            On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3.Whether the Complaints Case is bad for defect of parties?

4. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

5. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

The Complainant is present today at the time of hearing of argument. The OP is found absent on call at the time of hearing of argument.

              Complainant had specifically stated in his complaint that the Complainant No. 1 and the husband of Complainant No.2 were promised by the OP that he would give them job at Dubai with a good salary per month and with all facilities. They agreed and it was contracted that they would have to pay Rs.3,60,000/- in total and accordingly they paid. The OP assured them that their tickets were booked and their scheduled departure was on 15.11.15. Accordingly when the Complainants had prepared themselves for their new venture and the OP informed them that their work at Dubai would be with a Multi National Company. But when the Complainants were about to their way at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Airport  at Kolkata they were informed by the OP that their tickets were cancelled. They came back and chased the OP and demanded for refund of their money which they had given. The OP on 30.10.16 admitted the entire fact in front of the witnesses and promised to pay back the money. But till date the OP kept mum about the return of the money which he had taken from the Complainants and had cheated them.

              But in the instant case we find that the OP is not the authorized person to gave them any job at Dubai. The contact made between the complaint and the OP is illegal. If the fact of the Complainant be true, it is a clear case of cheating. So, the question of hiring any service from the OP does not arise.

             From Annexure F we find that the Complainant filed a petition U/s 156 (3) of CRPC praying for investigation in connection with the offence alleged to have been committed by the OP of the instant case.

             In Maria Franics v. Reverend Father R. Ratchagar, [(1994) 2 CPJ 108 (NC)], the State Commission has observed that criminal complaint is exclusively triable by the Criminal Courts and the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [now the Consumer Protection Act, 2019] will have no jurisdiction. It was held that it is not a consumer dispute.”

In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 29.10.18 and admitted on 22.11.18. 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 fails.

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                            Ordered

that the instant complaint case No. CC/165/2018 be and same is dismissed on      contest 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