DATE OF FILING                    :     05-05-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      06-06-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER       :      02-01-2015.  

Sri Chandi Charan Singha Roy,  

son of late Kalipada Singha Roy,  

residing at village, P.O. & P.S. Sankrail ( near Sankrail P.O. )

District Howrah,

PIN  711313 …................................................................. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.  ROSE VALLEY,

       having its registered office

       at RGM 25/3010, Raghunathpur, VIP Road,

       Kolkata 700059.

   

  2.  Branch Manager,

       Rose Valley, Dhulagori Branch,

       working for gain at branch office at

       village & P.O. Dhulagori ( near Dhulagori Truct Terminal ),

       P.S. Sankrail,

       Howrah 711302. …....................................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.

   

   

                                                  P   R    E     S    E    N     T

   

  President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

  Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

   

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

   

• 1. Complainant, namely Chandi Charan Singha Roy,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 1,200/- with interest, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant madeinvestmentin the scheme of holiday membership plan issued by o.ps. for an amount of Rs. 1,200/- for five years. The maturity amount of Rs. 9,600/- was assured by the o.ps. vide Annexure certificate. The certificate number is as follows :

        Shri Chandi Charan Singha Roy  M. Code no. 077056170.                                            

3. O.P. promised to pay the maturity amount on the due date to the complainant. But in the aftermath of Sarada Scam, out of fear, Complainant  repeatedly went to the office of o.ps. with the request to release his deposited amount. And on the instruction of the o.p. complainant deposited the original papers with the o.p. no. 2 on 22.5.2013 vide Annexures. And complainant was asked to go to the office on 19.7.2013. Accordingly, complainant went to the office of the o.ps. but on  different pleas  they have returned the complainant  without giving his deposited amount. Thereafter complaiant repeated went to the o.ps.’ office but all went in vain. Hence the case.

4. Notice was served. O.p.appearedfiled any written version. Accordingly,

case was heard on contest.

5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainant and noted its contents. We have also perused the W/V filed by the o.ps. along with theAnnexures . The annexures elaborately mentioned the terms and conditions governing the investment plan adopted by the Complainant. O.ps. also specifically mentioned vide para 8 of the W/V that they have never promised the complainant regarding the premature payment. It is the fact thatcomplainantinvested Rs. 1,200/- in the o.p. company with the hope that he would get the maturity amount of Rs. 9,600/- after completion of five years. We all know suddenly the Sarada Scam played an important role in the arena of investment in the private companies. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, people t make such investment foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to nonpayment, people are, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. But herein in this case no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. could be made out by the complainant. The investment was made only on 28.01.2013. The date of maturity is yet to come. But when the o.ps. have received the original certificate from the complainant, it is very well understoodthat o.ps. are to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. Accordingly, thecase is allowed in part. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 265  of 2014 ( HDF  265  of 2014 )  be  allowed in part on contest   with costs against  the O.Ps.     

      That the  O.Ps.  are directed   to pay the principal amount of 1,200/- to the complainant in terms of the certificate in question  within one month from this order  i.d., at the rate of 9 per cent  p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amount till actual payment.

      No order as to compensation.

      The complainant do get an award of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost and o.p.  is directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment

      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.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.