IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/43/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
13.03.2019 19.03.2019 08.12.2022
Complainant: Smt. Smriti Saha
C/o- Provash Chandra Saha,
Of Dargatala, Beldanga Bazar,
P.O. & P.S.- Beldanga,
Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742133
-Vs-
Opposite Party:(1) The Manager
Sahara India Parivar
Beldanga Station Road,
P.O. & P.S. Beldanga
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742133
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Prabir Banerjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : N.A.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBEr
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Smt Smriti Saha (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Station Road, P.O & P.S.- Beldanga (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 filed the instant petition stating that she had invested Rs. 60,700/- to the O.P. and O.P. accordingly issued Certificate being No. 562000665924, date-07.09.2012. The O.P. undertook to pay interest of the invested amount after the lapse of 6 years. But, in spite of proper investment the Opposite Party had denied to pay the matured amount. The Complainant several times approached the Opposite Party but failed. The Complainant had also made complaint with the Opposite Party and also to SEBI but those were of no effect.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,35,000/- along with Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices no one present before this Commission to controvert the allegations of the Complainant. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the case of the Complainant that she filed the instant petition stating that she had invested Rs. 60,700/- being Certificate No. 562000665924, date-07.09.2012. In spite of proper investment the Opposite Party had denied to pay the matured amount. The Complainant several times approached the Opposite Party but failed.
The point to be noted is that the Complainant filed the complaint on affidavit and as such the Complainant can be treated both as complaint as well as evidence of the Complainant. In support of her contentions made in the complaint, the Complainant has filed photocopy of the Certificate No. 562000665924, date-07.09.2012 and produces the original certificates. It is evident from said Certificate that the Complainant had invested said amount ‘under “Q Shop Plan-H” ( “PLAN-H”) for the period as per terms and conditions of the plan. Total Accumulated LBP Benefit will be 2.13/2.26/2.35/3.84/3.97/4.06 times of Global Advance and it is based on certain/specific consumption pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products.’
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the Complainant and the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant we are of the view that the Complainant has able to prove her case regarding the investment but what would be the total accumulated LBP Benefit is not clear to us. As the O.P. has not returned the due amount to the complainant in due time here lies the deficiency on the part of the O.P. So, the Complainant should get the matured amount as per terms and conditions of the certificate issued by the O.P.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 13.03.2019 and admitted on 19.03.2019. 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 is allowed ex-parte.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/43/2019 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
The O.P. is directed to pay the principal amount of Rs. 60,700/- along with the interest payable as per the terms and conditions of the Certificate issued by him.
The aforesaid order must be complied with within 90 days from the date of passing of this order.
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
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
