KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal Uder section Consumer protection act, 1986, preferred against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Ld. DCDRF Alipurduar in CC/38/2014. Initially this appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble WBSCDRC, Kolkata where in it was numbered as FA/534/2016 there after the appeal was reassigned to this Commission and it was numbered as RBR/A/18/2020.

The appellants’ case in brief is that the appellant being Complainant had purchased 13 numbers of (MRP) policies, from Rs.8,59,000/- @ 8 % interest per month, against receipt of certificates issued by the respondent opposite parties who were carrying on business under the name and style “Swapnadeep Dealtrade Ltd.” They received monthly interest from the respondent OP no. 3 till March 2013, but after April, 2013 the appellant/complainant did not receive any such interest against the above-mentioned policies. The appellant/complainant intimated the matter to the Chief Managing Director of the Registered office at Mainaguri. The respondent / op parties inform that the said interest would be paid by within the month of May 2013. But as no payments were made the appellant/complainant visited the office of “Swapnadeep Dealtrade Ltd” at Falakata branch but in vain. There after they filed a complaint before the Falakata PS.  on 23/05/2014. Since then, they suffered great financial trouble and finding no alternative they lodged the complaint before Ld. DCDRF, Alipurduar with necessary prayers.

The respondent 1/ OP no. 1 appeared to contest the claim by filing written version wherein he had denied the appellant/complainants case and had mention appellant no. 1/complainant no.1 was a senior adviser of the Falakata branch of “Swapnadeep Dealtrade Ltd”. That the part he himself use to collect amounts from the investors as receivers and as he had access to the company documents he had prepared false and fabricated receipt in his own name as well as in the name of his wife be appellant no. 2 /complainant no.2. False investments were shown in the company documents were the name of the investors code numbers under which investments were made as well as receiver signatures, all were performed solely by the appellant no. 1/complainant no.1. It was also mention that the appellant no. 1/complainant no.1 was taking advantage of those false documents. More over the amounts allegedly deposited by the appellant no. 1/complainant no.1 were never deposited by the branch. It was further prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Respondent no. 2 /OP no. 2 also appeared to contest the claim by filing the W.V not only denied the appellant no. 1/complainant no.1 case but also mentioned that the company was made a party and suffered from non-joinder of party. That the part he had already resigned on 28.10.2013 and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Respondent no. 3 /OP no. 3 also appeared to contest the claim by filing written version the appellant no. 1/complainant no.1 case was denied and he was unaware of the incidents as he had tendered his resignation from the company on 08.10.2012. It was also prayed that the case be dismissed.

Respondent no. 4 and 5 /OP no. 4 and 5 did not appear to contest the case and the case was heard ex-parte against them.

After going through the materials and evidence on record the Ld. DCDRF, Alipurduar passed the impugned order dismissing the case.

Being agreed by the impugned order the instant appeal was preferred on the ground that the Ld. DCDRF, Alipurduar had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the appellants at the time of final hearing had submitted that a 13 numbers of MRP policies as provided in the complaint had been purchased by the appellant but since April,2013 they were not provided with the interest as promised. Insprite of informing the Managing director of the registered office at Mainaguri as well as lodging the complaint before the Falakata PS no relief had been provided. Undre the circumstance, the respondents/OP parties’ ill motive had been exposed but still the Ld. DCDRF at Alipurduar had failed the appreciate and the impugned there fore needed to be set aside.

For the respondents on the other hand had countered at the time of final hearing by submitting that the appellant no. 1/complainant no.1 was an employee/ partner of the company “Swapnadeep Dealtrade Ltd”, who had himself deposited the money and received the money but the company never received the money from the appellants. The appellant had cheated the company and in order to save their skin had lost police complain. The Ld. DCDRF, Alipurduar had meticulously examined the receipt and certificate and had opined against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order did not suffer from any irregularity had been passed on merits.

To start with the appellants preferred this appeal against the impugned the order but surprisingly they have fail to come of with any short of evidence to counter the observation made by the Ld. Lower Forum in the impugned order. In fact they have harped only on the facts of alleged before the Ld. Lower Forum and had not provide anything to challenge the observation which appeared to have been made meticulously by the Ld. Lower Forum on perusal of the policies. Under the circumstance, this inability on the part of the appellants not only next their case suspicious but also next the case on behalf of the respondents believable. This failure on the part of the appellants costs them dear. As a result, the instant is bound to fail.

It is therefore

Ordered

The instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order in here by upheld.

Copy of the order be send to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Alipurduar for necessary information.