Date of filing                :    30.03.2017.

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 complainant Susanta Kar and Susmita Maji Kar 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 Regional Managers of the O.ps. Complainant no.1-Susanta Kar invested money in different scheme viz. R.D. A/c, M.I.S. A/c and F.D. A/c with the O.ps. on different dates starting from 10/12/2009 till 29/12/2014, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph-9 of petition of complaint. It is stated that with regard to such investment, the O.ps. have paid the complainant no.1 the interest of such investment upto the month of September, 2014 and since January, 2014 the O.ps. have not paid any amount towards her investment in M.I.S. A/c. Similarly complainant no.2-Susmita Maji Kar invested huge amount in M.I.S. A/c and R.D. A/c with the O.ps. on and from 14/05/2011 to 29/12/2014. It is stated that with regard to such investment the O.ps. paid interest upto the month of September, 2014 to the complainant no.2 and since the month of October, 2014 the O.ps. have not paid any further amount to the complainant no.2. Both the complainants therefore requested the O.ps. to make arrangement for payment of the maturity amount of such investment to them but the O.ps. failed and neglected to make such payment to the complainants. Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.ps. to pay Rs.9,51,000/- to the complainant no.1 and to pay the complainant no.2 a sum of Rs.5,29,436/- and for an order of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

       O.ps. initially appeared in this case and they took adjournment for filing w.v. Finally they did neither appear nor did they filed 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.1-Susanta Kar 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 Susanta Kar and Susmita Maji Kar and from the petition of complaint it transpires that these two complainants allegedly invested certain amount of money separately on different dates in different scheme likes R.D., M.I.S., 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. Susanta Kar and Susmita Maji Kar 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 from the District Forum for filing joint complaint.

In the above facts and circumstances and the discussion made above we are constraint 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. 96/2017 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.