DATE OF FILING : 31-07-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 19-09-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 04-01-2012.
1. Sri Sonu Das,
son of Sri Chhotu Das,
residing at Qtr. No. YC 11, Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
2. Ms. Babita Chowdhury,
d/o. Shib Prasad Chowdhury,
residing at Qtr. No. YC 11, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
3. Asfaque Alam,
son of Md. Ilias Ansari,
residing at Qtr. No. YC 11, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
4. Javed Alam,
son of Md. Ilias Ansari,
residing at Qtr. No. YC 11, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
5. Mantasa Khatoon ( Minor ),
resident of Qtr. NO. YC 11, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
6. Smt. Radhika Devi,
wife of Sri Sunil Chowdhury,
residing at Qtr. No. YC 11, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
7. Shama Parveen,
daughter of Md. Naim,
resident of Qtr. No. YC, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304.
8. Tarannama Khatoon,
Daughter of Md. Nain,
Resident of YC 11, P.O. Banipur,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711304. --------------------------------------------------------------- Complainants.
-Versus -
1. Md. Raju.
2. Md. Salim,
Both the proprietors of
"EIDI FUND",
having its office at Lichubagan, New Basti,
P.O. Danesh Sheikh Lane, P.S. Sankrail,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711109.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the eight number of complainants have prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to refund the deposited amount of the complainants on various dates from 2007 to 2009 in the EIDI Fund organized by the o.ps. namely Md. Raju and Md. Salim and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- together with litigation costs.
The o.p. no. 1 in filing the written version denied the allegations made in
the complaint but did not set up any alternative case.
Likewise, the o.p. no. 2 in his written version denied in the line as followed
by o.p. no. 1 and challenged the maintainability of the instant complaint before this Forum and contended interalia that it is due to the complainants' misdeed and fault they are suffering if at all ; that the demand of Rs. 1,77,170/- as stated in para 15 of the complaint is just bogus and the pass book of the complainants will so otherwise.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It appears from the statement of account that the complainant no. 1 Sanu Das deposited Rs. 2,450/- on various dates till 20-07-2009 in EIDI Fund of the o.ps. Likewise, the complinant no. 2 Babita Chowdhury deposited Rs. 1,290/-, complainant no. 3 Asfaque Alam deposited Rs. 5,110/-, Complainant no. 4 Javed Alam – Rs. 3,080/-, complainant no. 5 Mantasa Khatoon – Rs. 1,440/-, complainant no. 6 Radhika Devi - Rs. 1,930/-, complainant no. 7 Shama Parveen – Rs. 4,700/- and Tarannam Khatoon – Rs. 1,710/- and Rs. 4,700/- on different dates as mentioned above. The aggregate of the amount deposited stands to Rs. 27,310/-. O.P. no. 1 submitted that he started the fund and it was ultimately closed. O.p. no. 1 had no knowledge if the o. p. no. 2 realized any money in the name of the EIDI Fund which is now totally inoperative.
6. Be that as it may it is palpable from the enclosures that the claimed amount was deposited by the complainants and it was received by the o.ps. The hand writing is also not denied by the o.p. no. 2. We are, therefore, of the view that the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the o.ps. committed gross deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(g) and adopted unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2( r ) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, the o.ps. cannot have any escape from the rigours of law. We are of the view that the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 87 of 2012 ( HDF 87 of 20f12 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.
The O.Ps. jointly and severally be directed to refund the amount to the tune of Rs. 27,310/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.ps. be further directed jointly and severally to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.
Both the o.ps. are directed to pay the amount aggregating Rs. 27,310 + 1,00,000 = Rs. 1,27,310/- within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till full satisfaction.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
