West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/90/2014

Smt. Geeta Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Prayag Infotech Hi Rise Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.90/2014                                                         Date of disposal:  31/12/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

  For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das,  Advocate.

  For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. S. K. Maity, Advocate.                                   

          

  Smt. Geeta Paul, W/O Late Sushil Chandra Paul of Mahatabpur, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist-   

  Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)Managing Director, Prayag Infotech Hi Rise Ltd., P-45 Bhupen Roy Road, Behala, Kolkata-700034,

2)The Branch Manager, Prayag Infotech Hi Rise Ltd., At Judges Court Road near Central Bank of India, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Smt. Geeta Paul, in short, is that an amount of Rs.200000/- was invested in the business of MIS Scheme of the Op for five years on condition that the complainant will get Rs.2167/- per month till the end of the period with refund of Rs.208000/- from the end of the Op. Accordingly, 60 warrants of Rs.2167/- each were issued to the complainant with commencement of the monthly payment w.e.f. March 2013.  It is alleged, by the complainant that the payment was stopped after October 2013.  The complainant moved before the Op even by serving a demand notice dated 6/01/2014 but no effect.  Ultimately, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for necessary direction to the Op for payment of subsequent warrant w.e.f. November 2013 with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  In order to prove the case some documents namely Membership Facility Certificate No.5280768 in favour of the complainant and Pay order dated 28/11/2013.

        The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and barred by law since the scope for payment is kept open by operation of Civil Courts’ order.  The transaction for commercial purpose in order to gain

Contd……………P/2

 

 

-( 2 ) -

profit by the complainant in the process of financial investment.  Further stated that the Membership Facility Certificate relates to the time sharing upon room facility and if the same is unused, the complainant would be entitled for Rs.208000/- after expiry of the period, that is, on 27/08/2018 alongwith internal warrant of Rs.2167/- per month.  In this connection, there exists an order dated 17/06/2013 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Civil Judge) 5  th Court at Alipur, South 24 Paraganas, in connection with T.S. Case No.11680/13 appointing Ld. Advocate Commissioner in the matter of status of disbursement of funds to the intending petitioner.  Thus, there is no scope available for the Op to make payment as per demand of the complainant and as such the Op is not liable for deficiency of service.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.

        In this connection, Op has submitted relevant papers of T.S. Case No.11680/13 alongwith time to time Commissioner’s report.          

        Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the Op duly accepted a lump sum amount from the complainant assuring him to make monthly payment till completion of five years and accordingly payment was made till October 2013.  The allegation is that the Op unreasonably stopped the payment.  So, necessary direction should be given to the Op on account of deficiency of service towards the complainant.

              Ld. Advocate for the Op raised objection through argument that the terms and conditions were followed by the Op admittedly till October 2013.  But now an undesired event has come up before the Op at the instance of one depositors association by means of presentation of a Civil Suit pending before the Ld. Civil Judge South 24 Paraganas and in that connection Ld. Advocate Commissioner has been appointed for the purpose of making payment to the aggrieved petitioners.  So, the present complainant may take necessary step in this behalf.  Thus, the Op is

Contd……………P/3

 

 

-(3 ) -

not liable for deficiency of service and as such the case should be dismissed.

            We have carefully considered the case with the help of documentary evidence on record.  It appears that there is no dispute as regard to the Membership Certificate and mode of repayment.  The payment to some extent is also admitted.  Only question arises whether there is deficiency in the matter of default payment w.e.f. November 2013 till the expiry of the scheduled period.  As a cause of default, we find there is a civil litigation at the instance of depositors’ association.  In this connection, we do not find any evidence whether the present complainant belongs to the said association, nor is there any whisper showing any information that the complainant has duly been invited for such scope of repayment.  If that be so under present situation, the Forum has no option to suggest the complainant to get relief through the process of the said civil litigation. 

             Under the facts and circumstances, the alleged incident of stopping payment of monthly warrant duly issued to the complainant by the Op does not bear any weapon to protect the contractual liability of the Op.  thus, in the present case the complainant may avail of the alternative jurisdiction of this Forum in getting relief as prayed for.

             In view of the findings made here in above we are to hold and decide that there is cause of action for presentation of this case before the Forum having its proper jurisdiction to deal with the question of deficiency of service against the Op.

             All the issues are disposed of accordingly.  

                          Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

            The complainant is entitled to get payment of Rs.2167/- (Two thousand one hundred sixty seven) only per month in respect of rest unpaid warrant relating to the Membership Certificate in force with further payment of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) only on account of litigation cost and Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only for compensation due to deficiency of service.

        The Op is hereby directed for payment of unpaid warrants with litigation cost and compensation as above within 60 days from this date of order.

Dictated & Corrected by me

 

President                                 Member                       Member                       President

                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur