DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.46/2008. Date of filing of the Case: 07.07.2008 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Subhasis Singha Alias Subhas Singha S/O. Satya Narayan Singha Vill. Saidpur P.O. Purvo Saidpur, P.S. Manik Chalk, Dist. Malda. W.B. | 1 | Managing Director VASUNDHRA ASSOCIATES SHIV SHAKTI PLAZA L – 1, Office – 6 Opp. ICICI Bank, Palam Dabri Road, Mahabir Enclave New Delhi, PIN – 110045. | 2 | Mr. Anil Kumar VASUNDHRA ASSOCIATES SHIV SHAKTI PLAZA, L – 1, Office – 6 Opp. ICICI Bank, Palam Dabri Road, Mahabir Enclave New Delhi, PIN – 110045. |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | | |
For the Petitioner : Joynarayan Chowdhury, Advocate. For the O.Ps.: None appears. Order No. 03 Dt. 05.08.2008 This is an application u/s 12 of C.P. Act filed by one Subhasis Singha @Subhas Singha of Saidpur, Malda against Managing Director, Basundhara Associates; Shib Shakti Plaza, New Delhi and one Mr. Anil Kumar of Basundhara Associates; Shib Shakti Plaza, New Delhi. The petitioner stated that he is a businessman and he maintains his livelihood depending on the business. He alleged that on the basis of an advertisement in ‘Uttarbanga Sambad’ regarding availability of loan from the aforesaid O.Ps. he sent documents of land, voter I.D. Card etc. on 10.09.2007. In reply to that , on 17.09.2007 he received a fax message from the O.P. regarding approval of the loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner made contact with O.P. No.1 over phone and ascertained that O.P. No.2 is the legal adviser of O.P. No.1 and he was asked to deposit money in the account No. of O.P. No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid Rs.36,000/- in different instalments during the period from 6.11.2007 to 20.3.2008 in the account of O.P. No.2. Inspite of his repeated persuasion the O.Ps. neither has sent the sanctioned amount of loan nor returned the money paid to them. This gives rise to the instant petition of complaint for the reliefs as prayed for. Since the O.Ps. do not have their Branch Office or any way have connection in the Jurisdiction of Malda District the petitioner has filed a petition u/s 11 of C. P. Act with a prayer to entertain the complaint. The petitioner has filed one xerox copy of ‘OFFER LETTER’ of the O.Ps., five pay-in-slip of ICICI, Bank relating to deposits of Rs.36,000/-. Hd. Ld. advocate of the petitioner, at length. For the satisfaction of the Forum, ld. advocate has failed to submit the caption advertisement of Uttarbanga Sambad wherein the alleged service was offered by the O.Ps. on payment of any consideration, the nature of business runs by the petitioner and whether such business in running by self-employment and for maintaining his livelihood. It appears from the ‘OFFER LETTER’ that the O.P.s have enclosed one proforma and terms and conditions and estimate as an important feature for sanctioning loan if the same is accepted by the applicant. None of the documents has been filed along with the petitioner. It further appears that the O.Ps. have put the condition that if such terms and conditions and estimates ARe acceptable to the applicant then Demand Draft of Rs.7000/- in the name of Basundhra Associates (O.P. No.1) payable at New Delhi to be sent. The O.P. on receipt of such draft shall prepare and submit in requisite search report comprising search of property titles, investigation etc. before disbursement of loan. No receipt and other relevant documents for sending the DD amount have been filed. The only document “OFFER LETTER” does not manifest the direction for depositing Rs.36,000/-to the O.Ps. The ld. advocate of the petitioner also fails to explain the reason behind the deposit of Rs.36,000/- in different instalments in absence of any such direction in the ‘OFFER LETTER’. He also fails to explain as to how the heavy amount has been sent to the O.P. when the name of the petitioner has been scribed as Subhas Singha in place of Subhasis Singha. From the above facts and circumstances it appears that the petitioner has not turned up in clean hands and also suppressed the facts behind the payment of Rs.36,000/- which is contrary to the only documents submitted by him i.e. “‘OFFER LETTER’”. This Forum also does not consider the petitioner as ‘consumer’ as has been defined in 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act and therefore this petition is not maintainable. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.46/2008 is dismissed on the point of maintainability. The petitioner is at liberty to take shelter of any other Forum/Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Let a copy of this order be given both the parties free of cost at once. Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
