Date of Filing: 29.07.2013. Date of Final Order: 17.02.2014
The gist of complaint apparently speaks that she had deposited (1) Rs. 10,000/- against Receipt No. 2259100001517 dated 31-12-2013, (2) Rs. 70,000/- against Receipt No. 2224100022392 dated 29-01-2013 and (3) Rs. 50,000/- against Receipt No. 2223100002408 dated 19-02-2013 to the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Royal International Trading, Chandamari, by the motivation of one of their Agent intend to get lump sum of interest on monthly basis. She got interest for 3 months, 2 months & 1 month respectively then stopped paying interest. She got Ischemic Cerebral Stroke in anxiety and wants to get the deposited amount back with legitimate interest with compensation of financial loss, mental agony & litigation charge Rs. 1,78,000/-.
She has prayed for admitting the complaint petition and direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid by him to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-, compensate Rs. 46,800/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,200/- i.e. Rs. 1,78,000/- in total.
She has filed the petition on verification dated 23-07-2013 at Cooch Behar, enclosing (a) I.P.Os. of Rs. 200/-, (b) affidavit copy, (c) Xerox copies of deposit receipt as annexure-l & (d) Customer Debit Card as annexure-ll under her signature.
She has also filed Agentnama authorizing her son Sri Debabrata Hore to submit her complaint document and lodge complaint against Royal International Trading, Cooch Behar, before this Forum authorizing him to execute any action further.
Based on the complaint DF Case No. 79/2013 was Registered on 29-07-2013 and upon hearing the Agent and considering materials it was admitted and Notice was issued fixing 20-08-2013 for S/R and appearance.
The Notice upon the Opposite Party No. 1 has been served through process server but S/R of Notice not returned in respect of Opposite Party No. 2.
At this juncture on 06-09-2013 Sri S.B. Ghosh appeared with a petition and prayed for date for filing written version which was allowed by this Forum fixing 03-10-2013 but on that date also adjournment was sought for by the Agent of the Opposite Parties and it was allowed date fixing 07-11-2013 for filing W/V. On that date also alike petition was filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties and cost Rs. 200/- was imposed for the Opposite Party, adjourned petition was filed and it was allowed fixing 02-12-2013 as last chance. On that date also time petition was filed for the Opposite Parties, when the Agent of the Complainant raised objection and the prayer was allowed imposing cost of Rs. 500/- for filing W/V along with cost. On 16-12-2013 also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties had filed a petition for adjournment and this Forum imposed Rs. 800/- in totally Rs. 1,500/- as C.P. fixing 30-12-2013 for filing W/V on payment of C.P. in default order of Ex-Parte hearing.
On 30-12-2013 the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties filed a petition for further time for filing W/V and another petition for time of pay the cost which have been considered and rejected and the Forum fixed 13-01-2014 for filing evidence on affidavit by the Complainant on Ex-Parte hearing.
On 13-01-2014 evidence on behalf of the Complainant has been filed.
The Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties filed petition for time to file W/V. For want of quorum 28-01-2014 was fixed for argument in Ex-Parte hearing.
On that date argument was heard when it appeared that the documents filed have not been marked Exhibits and the so called evidence on affidavit filed do not bear any note for marking those filed documents as Exhibit and hence this Forum on examination of the Ld. Agent on oath got the deposition on affidavit and those documents marked Exhibit in a separate sheet as Exhibit 1 to 10.
Points for Consideration
- Whether, Smt. Bakul Rani Hore is a “Complainant” and a “Consumer” in terms of Section 2(l)(b) & 2(l)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
- Whether, the instant petition is a complaint in terms of Section 2(l)(c)(iii)of the Act in terms of Section 2(l)(e) of the Act.
- What is the “Dispute” in the instant case.
- Whether, there “deficiency” in terms of section 2(l)(g) of the Act on the part of the alleged Opposite Party.
- Whether, the Complainant proved her case and is she entitled to get the claims in the petition/complaint if not why not ?
Decision with Reasons
On examination, scrutiny of the materials on record it transparently speaks from the petition of the petitioner dated 23-07-2013 of Smt. Bakul Rani Hore as Complainant, though there appears no mention specifically that she is a Complainant and/or a Consumer, the contents of allegation impliedly speaks that she is a Complainant and a Consumer of the Opposite Party No. 1 and as it appears from exhibits 2 to 8 i.e. the acknowledgement Nos. (1) 2259100001517 dated 31-12-2012 in respect of Receipt of Rs. 10,000/- with due date 13-07-2014, (2) 2224100022392 dated 29-01-2013 in respect of Receipt of Rs. 70,000/- with due date 11-08-2014 and (3) 2223100002408 dated 19-02-2013 in respect of Receipt of Rs. 50,000/- with due date 01-09-2014 vide exhibits 5, 7 & 2. Corresponding to the received copies vide exhibits 6, 8 & 4 respectively with an endorsement dated 14-08-2013 on the record Seal of the Royal International Trading with further Seal endorsement “Received Original Certificate”. It also appears on the exhibits 5, 7 & 2 with date on record Seal of royal International Trading endorsed Seal “Received Original Certificate”. Besides, exhibit “Customer Debit Cards” vide exhibit 2(a) & 2(b) being Nos. 258969 & 261187 with inscription of royal International Trading with signature of issuer and Smt. Bakul Rani Hore transparently reveal that she was a Consumer of the Opposite Parties and the petition filed by the Ld. authorized Agent i.e. the son of complainant dated 16-12-2013 after service of copy to the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party seeking presence of Smt. Archana Sarkar, M.D. “Royal International Trading stating further that she i.e. Smt. Archana Sarkar met him one and a half month prior to 16-12-2013 and proposed him (Ld. Agent) and she (i.e. Smt. Archana sarkar) to compromise with her for this case clearly speaks of existence of the alleged Managing Director Smt. Archana sarkar and her involvement with the instant case.
On the other hand it also appears from the case record that on 06-09-2013 Mr. S.B. Ghose Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 has taken steps submitting attendance of the Opposite Party on 06-09-2013. He also filed a petition for time to file W/V. On 03-10-2013 he sought time stating that the Opposite Party M.D. of the Company having seriously ill due to Cardiac Attack shifted to Kolkata for treatment the same matter has been submitted in his petition on 07-11-2013. On 02-12-2013 he submitted by petition that Opposite Party No. 1 as she is out of station for medical treatment of herself. He repeated by petition dated 16-12-2013 the same matter for filing W/V.
On 30-12-2013 the Ld. Advocate by filing a petition stated that the cost imposed upon the Opposite Parties i.e. Rs. 200/- vide Order No. 4 + Rs. 500/- vide Order no. 5 dated 02-12-2013 and Rs. 800/- vide Order No. 6 dated 16-12-2013 in total cost Rs. 1,500/- payable to the Complainant praying for time to pay the cost on being released from the Nursing Home and another petition on that date praying for time to file W/V which was rejected as the adjourned prayers appeared to have been filed maliciously, though with cogent ground; but without an iota of document and that also by a Ld. Experienced Advocate who has not yet filed Vakalatnama or Agentnama. Inspite the prayer by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party to pay the cost payable to the Complainant, amounting Rs. 1,500/- he has not yet paid the same. On the other hand even when the case has been taken up in Ex-Parte hearing with prayer of Vacating the said Ex-Parte hearing order has filed a petition for time to file Vakalatnama.
Thus, in terms of provision of Section 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as the Opposite Parties omitted to comply with the aforesaid orders made by this District Forum the Opposite Parties deserve punishment according to law after due process.
Now, let us come to discussion of the evidence to decide the points.
Point No. 1.
From the discussions here it is find that the petition Smt. Bakul Rani Hore is a Complainant and a Consumer ordering to the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
The record also speaks that the instant petition is a complaint, as the Opposite Parties failed to make the payments agreed upon. Of course it is a fact that in respect of Due Dates of Maturity of the Certificates are (1) 13-07-2014 of Rs. 10,000/-, (2) 11-08-2014 of Rs. 70,000/- and (3) 01-09-2014 of Rs. 50,000/- and the Complainant has filed her complaint on 29-07-2013 reasonably as the Opposite Parties had not paid monthly interest after 2 months, 2 months and 1 month it became due on the Capital investment and there in the Consumer Dispute against which for the Opposite Party even if the Ld. Advocate was appointed and had taken steps seeking adjournments only but not yet has filed even the written version as discussed at length herein before.
Point No. 3.
In terms of discussions herein above we have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service.
Point No. 4.
Thus, for the foregoing discussions and taking the evidence and matters in fact we find that the Complainant has proved her case and as such she is entitled to get claims if not to the tune as claimed for but reasonable and cogent amount should be awarded.
ORDER
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Complaint succeeds and the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 shall pay the Capital Invested amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- together with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this Order failure of which the two Opposite Parties shall pay cost at the rate of Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay, amount if so any accumulated shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal.
Further, the Opposite Parties shall pay interest at the rate of 10 percent on the Capital Invested amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-, till the payment is made on expiry of the statutory period of aforesaid 60 days, the payments shall be made jointly and/or severally by the Opposite Parties.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be sent to each of the parties free of cost by registered post with A/D forthwith 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.
