State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair
Present: Justice Arunabha Basu, President
Smti Biji Thomas, Member
Shri Basudev Dass, Member
CONSUMER CASE NO.02 OF 2012
Shri Biswadev Dhali, S/o Late C. Dhali, Electricity Department, Teressa Island, Nicobar
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Shri Shyamal chatterjee, S/o Late Sukumar Chatterjee , Chief Managing Director, SMP Traders, 353, Sushil Sadan, Natagarh main road, Sodpur, Kolkata-700113. R/o I/E Line, Light apartment, 6No. Port Blair lane, P.O.Barrackpur, P.S.-Titagarh, North 24 Pargana, Kolkata-700120 + 2 others.
…Opposite party
Order No. 03
Dated: 13.08.2012
The applicant is present in person. By order dated 18.06.12 and 22.06.12. We directed him to appear in person as we are of the view that the recitals in the application does not disclose any case to be decided by the State Commission under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
So far as present case is concerned it is recited in the application filed by the complainant that he has made an investment of Rs.22,500/- in 2010 along with further sum of Rs. 7000/- deposited in favour of the Opposite Parties on April 2012. The documents filed along with the application is enclosed with a brochure where payment of deposit has been indicated. The complainant has verbally submitted that this document is agreement with the Opposite Party, which in our view is hopelessly incorrect. Voucher is an invitation to offer and when the offer is accepted then an agreement is reached between the parties which may be either oral or in writing. So far as the present case is concerned bank receipts show deposit of sum of Rs.3025/- and Rs.4000/-. It is stated in the complaint that after receiving a sum of Rs.22,500/- some Identity cards were issued on behalf of the opposite party. So far as the present case is concerned the deposits standing in the name of Smti. Sabitri Dhali and others the same cannot be taken into consideration as they are not party to the Proceeding. Complainant has claimed that he deposited a sum of Rs.22500/- which is not supported by cash receipt and he was assured a sum of Rs.77,00,000/-. In our view the complainant has not disclosed even prima facie that the opposite parties have rendered any service and further there is deficiency in service. Unless this two ingredients are disclosed even prima facie the question of issuing notice does not arise. In our view the application as framed and filed before us does not attract any provision of Consumer Protection Act and does not indicate any deficiency as prescribed under the Act. The application stands dismissed. It is expected that before filing such case the complainant should have taken proper legal advice and should have taken counseling available in the State Commission. Considering the plight of the Complainant, we do not direct payment of cost for such frivolous litigation. Let a copy of the order be given to complainant free of cost.
