DATE OF FILING : 29.02.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 04.04.2016.
DATE OF ORDER : 29.11.2016.
Smt. Monika Manna,
wife of Jagannath Manna,
of village & P.O. Gutinagori,
P.S. Shyampur, District Howrah,
PIN 711315………………..…………………………….…………… COMPLAINANT.
- NVD Solar Limited,
21/1, Karnani Estate,
209, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Kolkata 700017.
- The Director,
NVD Solar Limited,
Mr. Subrata Mondal,
20/1, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane,
Bantra Sadar,
Howrah 711101.
And also
Mr. Dipsekhar Mukherjee,
4/1B, Kundu Lane, Bhowanipur,
Kolkata 700025.
- The Managing Director,
NVD Solar Limited,
Mr. Saibal Hazra,
49, Kailash Bose Lane, Howrah Sadar,
Howrah 711101.And also
120/1, Ramkrishnapur Lane, Shibpur Sadar, 3rd floor,
Howrah 711102.
- The Chairman,
NVD Solar Limited,
Mr. Arun Kr. Chakraborty,
15/1, Ambika Ghosh Lane, Shibpur Sadar,
Howrah 711102.
- The Regional Manager,
Bagnan Branch,
Anup Kumar Bagui,
VP 2 ( Vice President ),
Village & P.O. Jagadishpur ( Kalinagar ), P.S. Uluberia,
Howrah 711316.
- Top Senior,
Sri Tarak Bera,
son of Ram Bera, residing at village Gouripur,
P.O. Kangiakhali, P.S. Uluberia,
Howrah 711315. ……………………………………...OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) filed by the complainant, Smt. Monika Manna, against the o.ps., NVD Solar Limited & five others, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to refund the maturity amount of Rs. 13,200/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
- The case of the petitioner is that she purchased solar energy products from o.p. no. 1 in the form of solar lantern, solar home lighting system, solar street lighting, solar dual charges inverter under Sanchay Scheme for the period of 12 months depositing Rs. 12,000/- being policy no. 885230 from acceptance date 26.09.2012 to redemption date 24..8.2013 from the branch office of o.p. no. 1 at Howrah, and the o.p. no. 1 issued a receipt dated 26.09.2012 showing received product value of Rs. 13,200/-. Since the deposit of above mentioned amount the o.p. no. 1 did not pay any single amount to the complainant. So the petitioner wants to withdraw the said deposited amount along with MIS.
- The o.p. nos. 1 to 4 being the Director, Managing Director and Chairman of NVD Solar Limited, did not appear and contest the case. But the o.p. nos. 5 & 6 being regional manager and Top Senior appeared and filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable against them in the present form. They also submitted that the present case suffers from suppression of material facts and is full of incorrect statements. Both the o.p. nos. 5 & 6 are not connected with the o.p. no. 1 company and they were never regional manager nor vice president of the company or top senior of the company and they are never service provider nor a signatory and thus had no liability towards the product of the company and so the case against them be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- In support of her case the petitioner filed one xerox copy of receipt dated 26.09.2012 issued by o.p. no. 1, NVD Solar Limited,showing received product value of Rs. 13,200/- in favour of the petitioner as the stamp with signature are also very faint. It is noted therein that Rs. 13,200/- as received product value dated 26.09.2012. Another xerox copy showing several names with their policy numbers and amounts and dates of refund. But these documents are utterly disbelieved by this Forum not only being xerox copies of the same but also its authenticity is doubted having no basis either oral or documentary. Thus, This Forum finds no reason to allow the prayer of the petitioner which are not supported by any authenticated document or any other evidence and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the application fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 91 of 2016 ( HDF 91 of 2016 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest against the o.p. nos. 5 & 6 and dismissed ex parte against the rest.
Supply the copies of the order to the petitioners, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
