Date of Filing:  28.06.2013.                                                Date of Final Order: 29.04.2014

           The case of the complainants (1) Mst. Munna Bibi,(2) Swapan Kumar Barman,(3) Rajib Sarkar, (4) Saraj Kumar Sarkar, (5) Popy Adikary, (6) Kokileswar Barman, (7) Gobinda Sarkar, (8) Sahir Mia, (9) Jalil Mia, (10) Tapan Ch. Pramanik, (11) Rafikul Alam, (12) Santanu Barman, (13) Jagabandhu Barman, (14) Parimal Barman, under their joint signatures, have filed the instant petition of complaint, as investors, alleging against 1. Rahul Hi Rise Limited, Mathabhanga Office, 2. Rahul Hi Rise Limited, Hore Bishnu Apartment, R.N. Road, Cooch Behar to the effect that the Official of the Branch Office Mathabhanga were in no circumstances agreed to pay their deposited money & interest before 2 months. They contract the North Bengal Regional Office at Cooch Behar and Head Office of the said organization at Kolkata. They also stated alike the officials of the Branch Office Mathabhanga. As such they have been sufferers of financial loss and mental harassment. They claimed for realization of (1) Rs.3,61,088/- as Policy Maturity Value, (2) Rs.5,500/- as interest for the period of pendency of the case before the Forum, (3) Rs. 10,000/- towards Conveyance & food, (4) Rs.60,000/- for mental harassment thereby totaling Rs. 4,36,588/-in support of which they have annexed Xerox copies of i) Maturity Slip, ii) Monthly Collection Book, iii) Details of A/C No. Deposit Date, Maturity date Maturity Value & Interest Amount. They have also enclosed two IPOs of Rs.100/- each i.e. Rs.200/-= against complaint valued at Rs.4,36,588/-. They also enclosed their affidavit under joint signatures, executed before the Notary at Khagrabari Cooch Behar dated 24-06-2013 besides, a an “Agentnama”(without date) under their joint signatures, appointing Shri Samaresh Pramanik to conduct the entire proceeding for & on behalf of all of them on the ground that they would not be able to attend the Forum in time and on dates for their works.

          On the basis of which DF Case No. 60 of 2013 has been registered on 28-06-2013. After hearing the Ld. Agent of the complainants on the point of admission, materials available on record the petition was admitted and 30-07-2013 was fixed for S/R and appearance.

         On 30-07-2013 Mr. Sourav  Bikash  Ghosh, S/O  Susil Kumar Ghosh of P.S-Kotwali, P.O. & District-Cooch Behar, as System Manager of the O.P. Company entered his appearance for & on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, through Ld. Advocate  Mr. Raju Roy of Cooch Behar Bar Association as their Agent, by executing an “Agentnama”,  appointing him to conduct this case. The Ld. Advocate filed a Petition for time to file written version which was allowed fixing 13-08-2013 for filing the W/V.  On that date the Ld. Adv. again filed a petition stating  that the documents filed by the complainants have been sent to Kolkata for verification and prayed for time which was allowed subject to filing the W/V in default the matter is to be heard ex-parte. On the said date i.e. 27-08-2013 the W/V was filed with a separate prayer for adding parties in this case.  16-09-2013 was fixed for hearing the said petition but on that date the O.Ps were absent without any step and in the ends of justice 07-10-2013 was fixed for hearing the Petition dated 27-08-2013 and order. On that date the present President joined on transfer of the previous President and after hearing the said petition dated 27-08-2013 was allowed treating: (3) The C.M.D./M.D., Rahul Hi Rise Limited, P-745-A,  New Alipore,  P-Block,  Kundal Lal Saigal Sarani, Kolkata-700053, (W.B),  (4)  Smt. Bindu Barman (Agent), Rahul Hi Rise Ltd., Vill- Nagar lal  Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Sitalkuchi, District-Cooch Behar-736158. (5)  Shri Tapan Ch. Pramanik  (Agent),  Rahul Hi Rise Ltd. Vill- Nagar lal Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Sitalkuchi, District- Cooch Behar, PIN-736158 as added Opposite Parties of the O.P. No.1 & 2.

         Notice upon the added parties, were issued fixing 01-11-2013 for the S/R & appearance. On that date aforesaid Mr. Samaresh Pramanik, by filing a petition for the O.P. No. 4 & 5 stated that the O.P. No.5 Shri Tapan Ch. Pramanik is his father who is sick and O.P. No.4 is his neighboring aunt who for her personal cause could not appear in person he would appear for both of them in the Forum. In this aspect on being asked, he has submitted that on the next date the authorization letter shall be filed. On further being asked, as to his representing his father as complainant No.10 what is his submission, he stated that in that case they would appoint some- one  else. No S/R was received in respect of the O.P. No. 3. Accordingly, 22-11-2013 was fixed for the S/R & appearance of the O.P.No.3 and filing the letter of authorization by the O.P. No.4 & 5.  On that date Mr. Samaresh Pramanik filed the Authorization Letter of the O.P. No. 4 & 5 under their joint signatures, authorizing him to conduct the case on their behalf; but surprisingly he filed his appearance for the complainants.  He also filed a Photocopy of the meditation report of the D.C.A & F.B.P, Cooch Behar dated 13-06-2013 in this regard. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P.No.1 & 2 was also present but due to lack of quorum 12-12-2013 was fixed for W/V by the O.Ps.

         On 12-12-2013 one Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray has appeared by filing his attendance, together with an Authorization Letter under joint signatures of the 14 complainants, for the Petitioners as an authorized Agent. He has also filed a petition stating that the authorized agent Shri Samaresh Pramanik has miscalculated the total maturity amount which should be 3,60,588/-. The additional interest for the total deposit of the complainants has been calculated @ interest with which the deposit scheme started. The rate of interest approx 16.66%. Since the Money Marketing Companies vanish overnight, this matter has to be determined at the earliest. He has enclosed a corrected claim of the complainants under his initial on the Xerox-copies of the filed complaint; but without service of copy to the opposite parties.  The Ld. Agent of the O.P. No.4 & 5 filed a Petition stating that said two Opposite Parties are members (AGENTs) of Rahul High Rise Ltd. He also file a written version of the above two O.Ps. Hence, both sides Ld. Agents/Ld. Advocates present were heard and detail order was passed vide Order No.9 dated 12-12-2013 as the Ld. Agents could not state as to the status of the complainant No.10 who has been impleaded as O.P.No.5 by the O.P.No.1 & 2 and as the Ld. Agent Mr. Samaresh Pramanik has taken step for the complainants also.  06-01-2014 was fixed for personal appearance of the complainants and Opposite Parties who have already appeared through their Ld. Advocate/Agents and Notice was also issued, enclosing copy of the aforesaid order. The Ld. Agents/Advocate appeared on that date but none of the parties appeared in person spite of service of copy of the said order. Accordingly, 21-01-2014 was fixed for personal appearance of the parties in litigation. On that date One Mr. Madan Kumar Barman son of the complainant No.2 Mr. Swapan Kumar Barman appeared by filing his Agentnama-cum-Attendance. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P.No.1 & 2 filed a Petition U/S 26 of the Consumer Protection Act after supply of copy to Mr. Samaresh Pramanik who appeared by filing his attendance.  As the Ld. Agent.  Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray of the complainants did not turn up & hence the copy of the petition was enclosed for the complainants. Accordingly, 11-02-2014 was fixed for hearing the said petition with direction to other parties to file written objection if any. But none of the parties concerned filed any such written objection.

          On that date the said Petition dated 21-02-2014 was heard at length. The text of the petition clearly speaks that the 14 numbers of petitioners jointly filed the case against the O.P. No.1 & 2 for non-payment of deposited amount of the petitioners against which they have filed written version/Objection. Subsequently, on the petition of the O.P. No.1 & 2 the O.P.No.3, 4, & 5 were impleaded, as the impleaded O.P.No.5 is the complainant No.10 as well as who is an agent of the O.P.No.1 & 2.Besides, the O.P. No.4 is also an agent of the O.P.No.1 & 2. The complainants suppressing material facts and information filed this case, with a view to obtain illegal gain. The O.P.No.5 i.e. the complainant no. 10 of this case did not utter a single word in the complaint that he was an agent of the O.p.No.1 & 2. On the contrary, the complainants/petitioners No.1, 3 to 14 deposited their amount through the agent i.e. O.P. No.5 who is also the complainant No.10. On the other hand the agent of the O.P. No.1 & 2 by whom the complainant No.2 deposited his amount. Further, Mr. Samaresh Pramanik is the Ld. Agent of the Complainants No.1 to 14 and simultaneously he is also agent of the O.P. No.4 & 5 which is contradictory in the eye of law. The Complainants did not come in clean hand before the Forum. Besides, the 14 Complainants also appointed their agent Mr. Utpal Kr. Roy on 12-12-13, whose identity along with identity of Mr. Samaresh Pramanik is not clear before the Ld. Forum. The said Ld Agent Mr. Utpal Kr. Roy filed an amendment of complaint without filing amendment petition and without supplying copy of the said amendment of complaint which has been reflected in the Order No.9 Dated 12-12-2013 of this Ld. Forum. Furthermore, Mr. Samaresh Pramanik, Ld. Agent has filed a petition stating that the O.P. No.4 & 5 are Sales Member(agent) of Rahul Hi Rise Ltd (i.e.O.P.No.1 & 2) along with written version of above two O.Ps. (4 & 5) without supply of copies to O.Ps 1 & 2. The modus operandi of the Complainants and the O.P. No.4 & 5 is not clean before the Ld. Forum and reasonably they have appeared for illegal gain for which the case should be dismissed.

          Based on the contention of the aforesaid petition, materials on record, nature & gravity, fact & circumstance together with the locus-standee of the parties in the instant case, the Objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the C.P. Rules, 1987 and the C.P. Regulations, 2005 we find that in spite of the contention being true to and corroborative to the materials on record we are not inclined to allow the petition at this stage and especially when we find from the Memo No.548/COB/CA & FBP Dated 11-11-2013  of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Cooch Behar Regional Office, addressed to Mr. Samaresh Pramanik on his complaint (for Tapan Ch. Pramanik) and others, a tripartite meditation was held in presence of the representative of the Opposite Party i.e. the Asstt. Branch Manager, Rahul Hi-Rise Ltd., Dhupguri Branch, (System-in-Charge of Mathabhanga Branch) and the complainants on 20-06-2013 at 1 P.M. at his Office for resolving the dispute amicably held. And after hearing arguments from both the parties and verifying documents they found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party as the complainants had not got their maturity amount. For the O.P. the aforesaid Assistant Manager told that they would disburse the maturity amount to the complainants within one and a half month from the date of maturity and against which the complainants claimed their maturity amount within one month from the date of maturity to which he expressed their inability to disburse the maturity amount within one month from the date of maturity. Hence, they dropped the case from their end. Mere irregularity cannot vitiate a Proceeding.  And hence, the said Petition dated of the O.P. No.1 & 2 was rejected with due regards on the point of  dismissal of the case only; but not disputing the contents therein which are on record.

          On scrutiny of the Written Version for the O.P.No.1 & 2 it appears that the said opposite parties have assailed on the point of maintainability of the instant case on the ground of non-joinder of parties, consumer-ship of the complainants, lack of categorical version in joint petition, not citing the Head Office, the Agents of the company (as to whether the Agents actually deposited the collected amounts to the company or not), the Head Office of the Company. The Petitioners No. 1, 3 to 14 deposited their amount through the Agents. It has been stated that in general case the agent(s) act on behalf of the investor(s) who deposit the amount and also withdraw the amount on behalf of the investors by furnishing proper documents of the investor(s) and in such case the O.P.No.1 & 2 used to issue a document under splash headline ‘Maturity’ which generally means that the payments has been made in the hand of the agent. If the Petitioners’ amount not received by their agent in such case the original Deed regarding deposit of the petitioners would be kept in their hand. The aforesaid O.Ps have claimed that the case is not maintainable in present form and as the documents furnished by the complainants shows that the payments has been made in the hand of the agents on behalf of the petitioners, according to general rules of the Company. i. e. the O.P. No.1 & 2 (i.e. Rahul Hi Rise Ltd.) and has prayed for dismissal of the case.

The documents filed speaks as follows :

             It is pertinent to mention here that on 21-01-2014 the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 2 has filed a Petition under Regulation 16 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 stating that Sri Samaresh Pramanik is conducting the said case on behalf of the Petitioners No.1 to 14, is also conducting the case on behalf of the O.P.No.4 & 5 which is contrary to the concerned law. Sri Utpal Kr, Roy has also appeared on 12.12.2013 on behalf of the Petitioners No.1 to 14, who’s identity is not clear before the Court. He did not comply with the Order Dated 12.12.2013. As per the said Order he did not furnish his identity. That the said Samaresh Pramanik and Utpal Kr. Roy have made close nexus and appearing before the Court with a view to getting illegal gain, and has mentioned here that they are not an advocate. Today (on 21.01.14) said Utpal Kr. Roy misbehaved with the Court in presence of the Ld. Advocates. Under the circumstances, Forum would graciously be pleased to take necessary action as per Provision of Law. It appears that in the margin of the Petition 6 Ld. Advocates vide- Sarbashri (1) Pasupati Nath, (2) Rabindra De, (3) Dhrubajyoti Karmakar, (4) Aharan Habib, (5) Himadri Sekhar Roy and  (6) Surajit Datta has put their signatures in presence of the aforesaid two Ld. Agents and the litigants of different cases to which said Mr. Utpal Roy became furious and abused them and also during Session in the Forum using un-parliamentary filthy languages. The Forum tried to pacify the matter requesting him to refrain from such behavior but he did not give ear to it and became more furious to which the present litigant also raised their voice against him and to which he abused them also in filthy languages. Considering the gravity of the situation going worse local P.S was called to take steps to which S.I. with force arrived at and a complaint as to his misbehavior was handed over to the said S.I. who enquired the matter at spot and took Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray into custody and left. Though in other cases also, even cases against the opposite parties i.e. medical  professionals, nursing homes, laboratories, money marketers, insurance companies, banks  exciting the complainants/Ld. Agents by sitting by side of the complainants/agent rendering uncalled for advice and false assurance by whispering and creating unhealthy situation at times besides; disturbing the office staffs demanding records/certified copies etc instantly to go through and also by filing fictitious petitions, contemptuous/defamatory petitions in other cases and without observing even normal procedure. The Forum, however overlooked those considering his loss of service as a teacher and recent loss of father; but he has been misusing sympathetic consideration as weakness of the Forum and had been continuing such behavior. Considering all aspects and interest of justice, smooth functioning of the Forum we decided to debar said Ld. Agent permanently from his appearance/conducting any case, on completion of trial of this case and two other cases filed by his father (since deceased) against the WBSEDCL, as for the act of one the consumers/opposite parties should not be allowed to suffer in the perspective of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Regulations, 1987 and the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

         Now, let us decide the instant case on the basis of the materials on record, as we do observe that allowing further time to file the evidence/written argument when in spite of repeated directions they did not bother to file even the original documents, they relied on to substantiate their case, and even they failed to appear in person in spite of service of Notice to appear. None should be allowed to languish before the Forum for a long time without sufficient and cogent ground. Violators of order should not be indulged/encouraged to play with the law even it is consumer friendly.

          The Written Version of the Opposite Party No.4 & 5 speak that they served as agents of Rahul High Rise Ltd. Mathabhanga Office, Thanapara and they acknowledged the claim of the complainants in respect of the maturity of their investment schemes. They have tried their best to communicate with the management of Rahul High Rise Ltd. In returning back the maturity amount of the complainants. They have claimed that they are in no way responsible for the delay and harassment of the complainants in getting back the complainants’ maturity amount and the maturity amount should be returned back to the complainants at the earliest.

         On perusal and scrutiny of the materials on record it appears at the face of the complaint that there is no endorsement as to who filed the case and there is also no whispering in the petition of complaint u/s 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as to seeking permission of the Forum to file the complaint by stating that it is being filed by one or more consumers ,where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, on behalf of or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested. The particulars of the petitioners do not bear as to their identity because from the serial of Complainants from 1 to 14 there is no mention as to the name of Father/Husband of the like and hence it is hardly possible to identify the status of the second name in the list where those are and in respect of serial No.11 there is no second name i.e. save and except the name of the Complainant. The Xerox copies of documents have been filed without any endorsement either of the person who physically filed the complaint before the Forum or self endorsement as to that those are the Xerox copies of the original and which are in the custody of, at the time of filing it. The Written version for the O.P. No.1 & 2 has been filed on verification whereas the same has been simply filed by the O.P. No.4 & 5 under their signatures and without the date even. The Letter of authority to Shri Samaresh Pramanik by the 14 complainants appears without date and there is also no endorsement of the person as to his acceptance of the same. The Agentnama to the Ld. Advocate Mr. Raju Roy also speaks without his endorsement on as to acceptance as it is transparent from the handwriting depicting “Accepted by Shree Raju Roy. (Advocate)”. And it also lacks seal of the System-in-Charge of the opposite party. These are the instances of casual and careless rather dismal performance of the parties/their authorized Ld. Agents/Advocates in one hand and on the other hand the concerned staff(s) of the Forum also appears very casual to bring the matters to the notice of the Bench (Forum).

         May whatever it be, we find it just to decide the case based on the materials on record as on date/the next date directing the concerned to file the original documents based on which the case has been initiated in default Final Order. On 29-04-2014 a Petition under joint signatures of 14 Complainants has been filed, bearing so far appears writing of shri Utpal Kr. Roy, Ld. Agent of the Complainants but without any endorsement as to filed by whom. The text of the petition speaks that 27-03-2014 was scheduled for passing final order and since then no copy of order has been issued and the office told that the order is not yet ready.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the 14 Complainants are the ‘Consumers’ of the O.P. Nos.1 to 5?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps. has any negligence/deficiency in service towards the Complainants?
4. Whether the O.Ps. are liable for compensation against such deficiency in service?
5. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for in the complaint?
6. Whether they are entitled to any relief(s) if so why and in what manner?

DECISSION  WITH  REASONS

             In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspective.

Point No.1.  Whether the 14 Complainants are the ‘Consumers’ of the O.P. Nos.1 to 5?

           From the discussion here in before although there are disputes raised by the O.P. No.1 & 2 stating that the O.P. No.4 & 5 being agent of the Complainants have not deposited the collected amount with the O.P. No.1 & 2 are in disputes and the Complainants deposited their amounts through their agent and Shri Tapan Ch. Pramanik who is Complainant No.10 as well as O.P. No.5. As such there are no disputes that the Complainants have deposited their money by investment to the O.P. No.1 & 2, may it be through the aforesaid agent. It is not transparent whether the aforesaid two agents are of the O.P. No.1 & 2 or of the Complainants. In the written version and in other petitions for the O.P. No.1 & 2 it has categorically been stated that those enclosed Xerox documents have been sent to the Head Office for its verification and authenticity and further that no have the O.P. No.1 & 2 has denied that they have received any money and/or they have not issued the documents in respect of 14 Account Nos. as to deposit of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.6,000/- etc. under their letter head pads containing the A/c No. Term, Plan, A/c. No., Branch Code, Product holders name, Sales Members name and Code No. and Seal of ‘Rahul Hi Rise Ltd.’ and the receipt as to documents and amounts against A/c. Nos. with the name of the agent and agent code No., maturity value date commencement and mode of payment of maturity value etc. Hence we may decide the point that all the Complainants are ‘Consumers’ of the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 (Ex-parte) i.e. the C.M.D./M/D. of Rahul Hi Rise Ltd., Head Office Kolkata as well as of the O.P. No.4 & 5 as the Complainant allegedly deposited their money through them.

Point No.2.  Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

            The Complainants are the residence of the District Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.1 & 2 were carrying their business with the help of the O.P. No.4 & 5 (Residents of Cooch Behar and they carried on their business at Mathabhanga and Cooch Behar from their O.Ps. i.e. place of business of the O.P. No.1 to 3 (O.P. No.3 being the C.M.D./M.D. Head Office in Kolkata). The claimed amount is Rs.4,36,588/- i.e. within the pecuniary limit of Rs.20,000,00/-. So, this Forum has got both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, in the instant case.

Point No.3.  Whether the O.Ps. has any negligence/deficiency in service towards the Complainants?

            From the discussion herein above we find that the O.Ps. have not produced the document in original at the event of payment of maturity amount to the Complainants/ Investors though the Xerox copies of the documents filed by the Complainants were sent to the Head Office for verification and authentication as to the genuineness of those documents. May it be that the poor villagers working as and Agricultural labour or otherwise earning their livelihood and/or might have not kept those valuable documents safely. It is also fact that the Complainants inspite of order on several dates through their Ld. Agents was asked to deposit the documents in original lying with them based on which they have filed the instant case but neither the Ld. Agents nor the Complainants have produced those documents along with their evidence. Surprisingly further the case was filed on 28-06-2013 and today is 29-04-2014 the anomalies discussed herein above has covered more than 50 percent page of the final order. Further, may whatever it be from the documents filed by the Complainants as discussed herein before under a schedule, compared with the table and the enclosed Xerox copies of documents we have no habitation to reasonably believe that the Complainants invested their money with the O.P. No.1 to 3 through the agent O.P. No.4 & 5 of the company as those agents have their Agent Code. Had they been agent of the Complainant there would have no Agent Number. So, we are not at all inclined to rely the proposition as put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.1, 2 & (3 Ex-parte). The point as whether the two Agents of the O.P. No.1 to 3 had deposited the collected amount or not rest upon the O.Ps. and not on the Complainants as the O.Ps. failed to produce/adduce any iota of evidence in regard to non-deposit of the collected money in their company and/or they have taken any step against the any agents for such non-deposit and mis-appropriation of the collected money. The O.P. No.3 & 5 also failed to produce or adduce any document against the impleading them as O.P. No.4 & 5 by the O.P. No.1 & 2. However, the O.P. No.4 & 5 cannot escape from their responsibility and liability towards the Complainants. It is admitted fact that for the act of servant the master is liable but here in the instant case there is no iota of evidence that the agents were the employee/servant of the O.P. No.1 to 3. It is also fact that the O.P. No.4 & 5 might have acted as Commission Agent but they have not whispered in this aspect, so we reasonably find the O.P. No.1 to 5 liable for deficiency in service towards the Complainants.       

Point No.4.  Whether the O.Ps. are liable for compensation against such deficiency in service?

           In terms of the discussion herein above and specially in terms of the Memo No.548/COB/CA & FBP dated 11-11-2013 of Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & FBP, Cooch Behar Regional Office, Cooch Behar discussed herein before and the observation made in Point No.3 above, we have no habitation to find all the aforesaid five O.Ps. including the Ex-parte O.P. No.3 who is the kingpin and enjoyed the maximum benefits, we can reasonably presume but abstained from appearing before this Forum, reason best known to him but he cannot be allowed to escape from the liability making the poor agents escape goat at the behest of the O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.1 & 2 for whom the Assistant Manager as System In-charge participated before the aforesaid authority in meditation for settling the dispute amicably as discussed herein before.

            But simultaneously, the matter raised by the O.Ps. also should be taken into consideration in the light of balance of convenience and inconvenience by verification of the original documents of the Complainants by the O.Ps. in presence of side Ld. Advocates of the agents to ascertain the actual dues the Complainants are entitled to together with reasonable minimum interest on the admitted deposited amount as compensation besides the reasonable litigation cost, though the proceedings of the case was carried on very negligently, recklessly by the Ld. Agents as discussed at length, herein before but for that acts of the agents the Complainant should not suffer. The Complainants are not entitled to get the compensation and the other claims besides the refund of actual credited amount with interest and litigation cost as observe herein before.     

Point No.5.  Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for in the complaint?

            In terms of discussion herein above we find that the Complainants are entitled to get the benefits as discussed in Point No.3 & 4 and not the benefits as claimed in their prayer portion of the petition as because the Forum is neither a Lottery Centre nor a Jackpot, as observed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

Point No.6.  Whether they are entitled to any relief(s) if so why and in what manner?

            Accordingly, in terms of the discussion herein before, even if no evidence has been adduced by the parties in litigation within the period of more than 10 months where the case of this nature should have been decided within 3 months from the date of appearance of the O.P. In the interest of justice fact and circumstances and materials on record we find that the relief(s) should be released on production of the original documents by the Complainants to the O.Ps. and/or their authorized representative and ascertain the actual amounts of deposit with the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 in presence of the Ld. Advocates/Agents of both sides litigants including of the Ex-[arte O.P. No.3 and O.P. Nos.4 & 5 and the payment should be made in cash either to the authorized Complainant by the 13 Complainants at their option after preparation of the chart of actual deposits.

ORDER

           Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint do succeed and the same is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Rahul Hi Rise Limited, Mathabhanga Office, whoever he may be In-charge, Opposite Party No.2 i.e.  Rahul Hi Rise Limited, Hore Bishnu Apartment, R.N. Road, Cooch Behar, O.P. No.3 i.e. The C.M.D./M.D., Rahul Hi Rise Limited, P-745A, New Alipore, Kolkata, O.P. No.4 i.e. Smt. Bindu Barman (Agent), Rahul Hi Rise Ltd. and O.P. No.5 i.e. Shri Tapan Ch. Pramanik (Agent), Rahul Hi Rise Ltd., the net amount deposited to the company by the Complainants through the said agents/in person, in the company as compensation, together with 5 percent simple interest on it since the date of deposits of their respective amounts, as per schedule herein above. Besides, reasonable litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants by the five opposite parties jointly and/or severally within 60 days of this order, failure of which they shall pay @ Rs.10/- each for each day’s delay, on expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, if any by depositing the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal, if accrued due to such delay in the same manner.

           Simultaneously, the 14 Complainants shall produce their original documents for the calculation of their dues within 60 days of this order and shall co-operate the O.Ps., in default each of them shall pay @ Rs.10/- per day for each day’s delay. In case of non-production of the documents in original the concerned Complainant shall be debarred from the entitlement as ordered herein above. 

            Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/ld. Advocate by hand/ be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                President                                                                       President

   District Consumer Disputes                                        District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                  Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar

                  Member                                                                       Member

   District Consumer Disputes                                        District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                  Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar