Order-16.
Date-12/07/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that OP-3 used to visit at the Complainant’s house and approached the Complainant for a policy with OP No. 1. The Complainant purchased ‘Sahara-Q-Shop Unique Product’ valued at Rs.35.000/- at the request of the OP-3 who is the Agent of OP-1 i.e. Sahara India Limited. The OP-3 issued policy document to the Complainant for policy certificate No.562013212197 dated 21.08.2012. The Complainant is entitled as per the policy, value of the product with all pecuniary benefits arising out of the said product of the OPs. It is alleged that no monthly interest in respect of the deposited money was being remitted and/or paid to the Complainant till filing of the petition. The Complainant requested the OP-3 to help to pay back and or refund the deposited amount to the Complainant with interest as on date as no monthly interest was being paid by the OP-1. OP-3, thereafter asked the Complainant to handover the original policy certificate and money receipt along with letter for receiving cheque for the petitioner.
The Complainant having close acquaintance with OP and on` good faith handed over the receipt for releasing the deposited amount for which he promised to handover the cheque to the Complainant. The Agent got the signature of the Complainant signed on some papers with the assurance of giving the cheque in favour of the petitioner from OP-1. OP-3 after a few days informed that money receipt no. 71014396310 dated 21.08.2012 was missing from OP-3 and a diary being no. 2164 dated 26.09.2016 has been lodged for the alleged loss of the original receipt. The Complainant wrote a letter to the OP-1 Rishra Branch, requested for a duplicate copy of the original receipt, but no action was taken by OP-2 for issuance of the duplicate receipt. The Complainant, thereafter, served a legal notice dated 15.11.2016 upon the Ops.-1 and 2 requesting for refund of the deposited amount with interest, but to no good. It is alleged that the OPs are hand in glove and in collusion with each other have hatched plot to extract the deposited money of the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for refund of the deposited money of Rs.35,000/- along with other reliefs in terms of prayers in the petition of complaint.
OP-1 and OP-2 have contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in fact and in law. It is stated that paragraphs 5 and 6 are false and fabricated. It is stated that the Complainant has transferred her account no. 816152003130 in favour of her brother-in-law,Nagendra Misra (OP-3) vide her letter dated 10.11.2015 and in her transfer application she has stated that due to medical treatment and other inevitable circumstances she transferred the said account in favour of OP-3 being her brother-in-law and for that she will not claim against her aforesaid amount in future. It is alsostated that the the Complainant has already transferred the account vide her letter dated 10.11.2015 in favour of OP-2 vide transfer control No.201615000332 dated 10.11.2015. Under such circumstanceds OPs are unable to refund the entire deposited amount to the Complainant. It is also stated that after about 10 months of her transfer account she with malafide intention lodged GD for missing of the money receipt. It is stated by the answering OPs that since Complainant transferred her account in the name of her brother-in-law she is not entitled to get refund of money from OPs 1 and 2. These OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP-3 has also contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and in fact. It is stated that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- with OP-1 at Rishra Branch under “ Q Shop Plan H “ on 21.08.2012 through this OP, being OP-3 and it wasa fixed deposit for a period of 06 years in the month of April,2014 when Mr. Subrata Roy, Director of Sahara, was in Judicial Custody in connection with cases lodged by the SEBI, the Complainant started to crate pressure upon this OP and repeatedly told for paying back of the aforesaid amount of Rs.35,000/-. As a solution, though the deposit was of Fixed Deposit nature, this OP and the Complainant amicably decided for transfer of aforesaid FD in the name of the OP-. The complainant thereafter filed false Court Affidavit on 27.09.2016 and made an application at Sahara Rishra Branch for acquiring a duplicate money receipt as noted against the aforesaid deposit. OP-3 already informed the actual story to the authority of Sahara India Limited through a letter dated 18.11.2016, in reply of an enquiry letter dated 17.11.2016. It is stated that the Complainant on ill motive has filed this case for harassing this OP. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether OPs are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant?
- Whether OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record, i.e. photocopy of Sahara Que Shop Unit Product certificate dated 21.08.2012, photocopy of money receipt of Sahara India of Rs.35,000/-, photocopy of GD dated 26.09.2016 with an affidavit, photocopy of letter to the Manager, Sahara India, Rishra Branch dated 01.10.2016, photocopy of of Legal Notice dated 15.11.2016 and other documentgs on record as filed from the side of the Complainant.
We have also travelled over the documents on record filed from the side of the OPs i.e. photocopy of application regarding transfer of A/c No.816152003130 by the Complainant dated 10.11.2015, photocopy of prescribed form for investment of Rs.35,000/-, photocopy of transfer fees dated 10.1.2015, photocopy of transfer application by the Complainant in the name of the OP-3.
It appears that the Complainant purchased one Sahara Que Shop Unit Product through the Agent, Sahara India Limited, being OP-3 vide money receipt No.71014396310 dated 21.08.2012 valued at Rs.35,000/-. We find that the said Sahara Que Shop Product is a Fixed Deposit, out of which interest is payable per month. The Complainant requested OP-3, Agent, to get back and / or refund the deposit amount to meet finalize need. It is alleged by the Complainant that Compolainant also handed over the original policy certificate and money receipt along with some letters for receiving for the refund. The Complainant has also stated that Complainant having close acquiantence with OP-3 and in good faith handed over t he receipt for realizing the deposited amount and the Agent got some papers of the Sahara India signed by the Complainant with the assurance to collect the chqeue in favour of the Complainant from Sahara India Limited, It is also alleged that the Agent in collusion with the staff of the Company has made mischief and deleted the Complainant’s name from the original book of account and no payment against the said certificate has been made by the OPs. OPs have however, stated that the Complainant to meet financial requirement and under unavoidable circumstances started creating pressure on OP-3 and also repeatedly told OP-3 for paying back of the aforesaid amount of Rs.35,000/-. The Complainant and OP-3 amicably decided for the transfer of the aforesaid amount in the name of the OP-3 and OP-3 agreed to pay back the principal amount of Rs.35,000/-. It is also stated by the OP that the Complainant has completed the transfer formalities by signing all required documents and handed over to OP-3 and OP-3 also made payment of Rs.35,000/- in cash and claim of the Complainant is manipulated thereafter.
It appears that the allegation of the Complainant is virtually practice of fraud,. It becomes increasingly difficult on behalf of us to adjudicate over the factum of fraud since it does not come under the domain of CP Act. Adjudication in fraud cases requires elaborate and comprehensive evidences and infrastructure which District Fora do not have. Primafacie, we find that the Complainant has made an application before the OPs for transfer of the FD in the name of the OP-3 and the transfer process was completed on 10.11.2015 under transfer control no. 20161500332 bearing receipt no. 071048294490. It is alleged by the Complainant that she has not received Rs.35,000/- from the OP either in cash or by cheque. It appears that the Complainant herself applied for transfer of formalities by signing all required documents and handed over the said FD to OP-1 along with all required documents and the aforesaid process was also completed. So, it is difficult to hold that Complainant has not received her payment of Rs.35,000/-. The question is, why she signed all required documents along with all relevant papers and handed over the said FD to OP-3, had she not received payment of Rs.35,000/-? Moreover, we find that the Complainant lodged a GD on 26.09.2016 i.e. long after 10 months at Amharst Street Police Station, Kolkata, being GD No.2164 involving in the name of the OP-3 that he lost papers relating to the aforesaid deposit. But, we find that police also did not proceed with any enquiry in respect of the said GD. The question also remains why the Complainant did not lodge FIR against OP-3 or other OPs, if she thought she was cheated or deceived by the OPs.?
We also find that the Complainant has not disputed her signature on the application form for transfer of the policy certificate in the name of OP-3. It is not the case of the Complainant that the signature appearing therein is not her signature or her signature was obtained through misrepresentation.
The Consumer Protection Act’86 is a special act and it gives remedy to the Consumer in certain circumstances. Before the Consumer can get any remedy against the OPs from the Fora set up under the Act,it must establish that there is some deficiency of service by the Ops. Both the concepts “deficiency” and “service” have been defined under section 2(g) and 2(o) of the Act. After going through the evidence and materials on record carefully, we do not find that the complaint as filed bythe Complainant is covered under section 2(g), 2 (o) of the Act. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case of fraud.
As a logical corollary of the discussion as made and having regard to the materials on record, we think that the present complaint is devoid on any merit. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs
No order as to cost.
