Date of filing                :    30.04.2017.

Decided on                  :    20.03.2019.

J U D G E M E N T

Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainants viz. Sathi Pandit and 8(eight) others against the O.ps., named above, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps.

       Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

       Being approached by the agent of the O.ps., the complainants on different dates starting from 10/11/2009 to 24/06/2015 separately invested certain amount of money in different scheme like R.D. and  F.D. with the O.ps. the details of which have been mentioned in the petition of complaint. It is further stated since 25.11.2015 the O.ps. are not paying any amount towards such investments to the complainants in spite of several requests. Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.ps. to pay Rs.10,40,272/- to the complainant no.1, Rs.40,000/- to the complainant no.2, to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant no.3, to pay Rs.60,500/- to the complainant no.4, to pay Rs.4,69,000/- to the complainant no.5, to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant no.6, to pay Rs.77,400/- to the complainant no.7 and to pay Rs.9,000/- to the complainant no.8 and to pay Rs.44,000/- to the complainant no.9 and for an order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

       O.ps. initially appeared in this case and they took adjournment for filing w.v. Finally they did neither appear nor did they file any w.v. for which the case was ordered to be heard ex-parte against them. Hence the ex-parte hearing.

       To prove their case, the complainant no.5-Madhusudan Pandit has filed an affidavit thereby praying that the petition of complaint may be treated as evidence. The complainants have also filed copies of some documents in support of their case.

POINT FOR DECISION

          Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

At the very outset, it appears that this complaint has been filed by Sathi Pandit, Jagannath Hazra, Sadhin Pandit, Sikha Jana, Madhusudan Pandit, Sampreeti Pandit, Pradip Kumar Pandit, Nilima Pandit and Sankar Samanta. From the petition of complaint it transpires that these nine complainants allegedly invested certain amount of money separately on different dates in different scheme likes R.D. and F.D. They are not the joint investors of such amount of money and their cause of action are also different. In view of the provision of the C.P. Act, a complaint may be filed by more than one consumer having the same interest. Here in the present case, we find that the complainants viz. Sathi Pandit, Jagannath Hazra, Sadhin Pandit, Sikha Jana, Madhusudan Pandit, Sampreeti Pandit, Pradip Kumar Pandit, Nilima Pandit and Sankar Samanta have no common interest regarding their such investment with the O.ps. and their cause of action are also different. Moreover at the time of filing of this complaint, no permission under section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act was obtained by the complainant from the District Forum for filing joint complaint.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions, made above, we are constrained to hold that the present complaint is not at all maintainable and as such it is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

          it is,

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case no. 109/2017 is dismissed ex-parte, being not maintainable.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the complainants free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.

(Bibekananda Pramanik)

President, D.C.D.R.F.,

Howrah.