West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/254/2015

Shri Tapan Jyoti Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Shankar Prosad Bhadra. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN COMPLEX, BARUIPUR, KULPI ROAD, KOLKATA-144

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _254_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 4.6.2015                               DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:     02/12/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Shri Tapan Jyoti Bhattacharya,18/1/1, Masjid Bari Lane, P.O & P.S Baranagar,

                                               Kolkata – 36.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  Shri Shankar Prosad Bhadra, Udyanpalli (North Port), Ward no24, Maheshtala, Batanagar, Kolkata – 140.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that 18(eighteen) Kishan Vikash patras valued Rs.1,90,000/-were found misplaced/lost from the custody of the complainant for which a General Diary was lodged with the local P.S. The O.P.namely Shri Shankar Prosad Bhadra, displaced a newspaper advertisement in early 2011 claiming to handle operation in finding various old and critical pending issues of similar cases successfully with professional charges. Accordingly complainant contacted the O.P to find and release duplicate Kishan Vikash Patras of similar value so that the same can be encashed and an agreement was executed on 2.5.2011 for this purpose and made advance payment. It was also stated in the agreement that within 10 months the contracts should be fulfilled. But having failed to perform the responsibility, another amended agreement was executed on 15.2.2012 extending the time upto 30.4.2012, when Rs.3000/- was paid to the O.P. But the O.P did not make any effort in work entrusted on him . After that, a letter was issued and complainant also approached the Consumer Affairs Department but no fruitful result comes out. Hence, this case praying for refund of the money so paid by the complainant and other reliefs.

Inspite of serving summon upon the O.P, he did not appear and contest the case, for which case is running against him in exparte.

            After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

 

 

 

 

                                                            Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            After perusing the records in its entirety and the documents filed by the complainant it appears that complainant has entered into an agreement on 29.4.2011 with the O.P for recovery of total 18 numbers of KBP Certificates as the same were lost by the complainant.

            From that agreement it appears that date of those KBPs were from 8.1.2001 to 27.3.2003 and the maturity of those KBPs were after completion of five years from the date of issuance of the same. But from the documents and the averments advanced by the complainant it appears that inspite of running from pillar to post for recovery of the amount of KBPs before the concerned Postal department, after long back from the date of maturity of those KBPs  complainant entered into the agreement on 29.4.2011 for recovery of the said KBPs with the O.P ,who is not at all a concerned person with respect to the postal department. In that agreement it was mentioned that on 22.9.2003 he has lodged a missing diary before the P.S concerned on 8.10.2003 but neither the copy of the missing diary has been filed by the complainant, nor any evidence of effective action has been filed by the complainant regarding the missing diary.

            Therefore, in the light of above discussion and considering the date of maturity of the KBPs in question and the date of missing diary (if any) it is very much doubtful that why the complainant without taking necessary steps for recovery of the KBPs with the concerned postal department has entered into an agreement on 29.4.2011 with the O.P who is not at all a competent and right person to do the same. Moreover, the date of agreement between the parties was in the month of April 2011 and the subsequent agreement dt.15.02.12.,the case was filed before this Forum on 4.6.2015 i.e. after two years from the date of cause of action.

            It is also observed by this Forum that he has lodged complaint before the Directorate of CA & FBP, South 24-Parganas on 20.11.2014 which is also after the limitation of two years with respect to the C.P Act ,1986. Therefore, first of all, the case is hopelessly time barred and moreover the agreement between the complainant and the O.P appears to us not at all tenable in the eye of law since the contract between the parties is in itself void abinitio. It is opined by this Forum that the aforementioned agreements between the parties are  void abinitio ,because the O.P is not at all any concerned person to recover the KBPs, which were issued by the postal department. Moreover, the complainant has not taken any effective action till 29.4.2011 to recover the KBPs which is very surprising to us. It may a tactics of the complainant to economically extort the postal department in connivance with the O.P .

            Therefore, in light of the above discussion,  the case of the complainant is dismissed because first of all the case is time barred  and secondly the complainant has no positive case.

            Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed in exparte without cost on the aforesaid ground.  

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

                                                            Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                    Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed in exparte without cost on the aforesaid ground.  

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

                                                            Member                                               President