West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/167/2015

Sri Tapas Kumar Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Subrata Gopal Mallick - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and 

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No. 167/2015

                                                        

                                                                Sri Tapas Kumar Roy…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

              1) Sri Subrata Gopal Mallick,

              2) Sri Khokan Mallick…...………...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  A. K. Roy, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 06/04/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a permanent resident of Lalgarh within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the opposite parties are the proprietors of Jewellery shop of “Gopal Chandra Mallick and Sons” at Barabazar within Medinipur town. The opposite parties deal “Jewellery Bandak” business in the same shop.  Gopal Chandra Mallick, the father of the opposite parties, also used to deal Jewellery Bandak business along with the opposite parties in their said Jewellery shop and the opposite parties used to deal Jewellery business along with Jewellery Bandak business with their father in the said shop.  For some urgent need of money, the complainant took Rs.600/- as loan after keeping one golden ring as Bandak on 12^th Chaitra, 1412 B.S and Rs.1,200/- keeping two golden rings as Bandak on 17^th Chaitra, 1412 B.S from the opposite parties.  The father of the opposite parties namely Gopal

         Contd………………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

Chandra Mallick, since deceased, gave documents of  such mortgage numbering “S” and “G” in presence of the opposite parties.  Again,  for urgent need of money, the complainant took Rs.700/- as a loan keeping two golden rings as Bandak on 9^th Kartick, 1413 B.S., Rs.1,500 as a loan after keeping three golden rings as mortgage on 2^nd Agrahayan, 1413 B.S. from the opposite parties. He also took Rs.4,500/-as loan from the O.Ps. after  keeping one golden Botom on 29^th Aswin,  1413 B.S. and their father  gave document of such mortgage   in presence of the opposite parties.  The complainant also kept some other ornaments against loan with the opposite parties in the year 1414 B.S.  All the above ornaments were kept as mortgage on condition that those  golden ornaments will be returned  when the complainant would pay principal loan amount along with 3% interest per month.  On 14/01/2015, the complainant went to the shop of the opposite parties and demanded his mortgaged golden ornaments after payment of money with interest but the opposite parties only returned mortgaged ornaments of the year 1414 B.S. but they refused the return the ornaments as mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complaint. On demand, they also refused to pay the value of such golden articles.  It is stated that those ornaments were about 3 vories. For such deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed praying for an order directing to O.Ps. to return the mortgaged ornaments, as aforesaid, or the value thereof and for other reliefs.

                  The opposite party namely Subrata Gopal Mallick has contested this case by filling a written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the opposite party nos.1 & 2 are the same and identical person and his nick name is Khokan Mallick. It is stated by the O.P. that he runs his business separately in some other place which is not in any way related  with the business of late Gopal Chandra Mallick.  Opposite party runs his money lending business since 2004 whereas his  father died in the year 2007 and therefore there is no question of running business jointly with his father.  Alleged transaction with Gopal Chandra Mallick was held in the year 1412, 1413 and 1414 B.S. i.e. about 7/8 years back and Gopal Chandra Mallick died on 31/12/2007. After his death, his business has been totally closed.  Opposite party is the owner of his  business named and styled as Gopal Chandra Mallick and sons having his trade license as well as money lending license in his name and he has got no concern with the complainant and there being admittedly no transaction or business deal  in between the parties, the complaint as filed is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

Contd………………..P/3

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            ( 3 )

Point for decision

1)Is the complainant ‘consumer’ under the opposite party ?

                       2)  Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?                    

 

Decision with reasons

Both the above points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of  brevity.  At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.  Both parties have of course relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case.  According to the complainant, the opposite party is the proprietor of Jewellary shop of M/S Gopal Chandra Mallick & Sons and the father of the opposite party named Gopal Chandra Mallick used to deal Jewellary Bandak  business during the life time and the opposite party also used to deal the said business along with his father in the said shop. Further according to the complainant,  for some urgent need of money he took loan of Rs.600/-,  Rs.1200/-, Rs.700/-, Rs.1500/- and Rs.4500/- on different dates starting from 12^th Chaitra, 1412 B.S to 2014 B.S from the said shop of Gopal Chandra Mallick after keeping  some  golden articles as mortgage and Gopal Chandra Mallick gave some documents of such mortgage  in presence of the opposite party.  Complainant kept those golden ornaments as mortgage with the opposite party on condition that the golden ornaments will be returned when the complainant would  pay the principal loan amount along with 3% interest per month.  On 14/01/2015, the complainant  went to the shop of opposite party and demanded his mortgaged ornaments after payment of money with interest but the opposite party only returned  few ornaments which were mortgaged in the year 1414 B.S. but he refused to return the other golden articles  of 3 vories.  So, according to the complainant the present opposite party along with his father Gopal Chandra Mallick, since deceased, used to run the said Jewellery business jointly and in spite of that, the opposite party refused to return back the mortgaged golden articles.  As against this, it is the specific case of the opposite party that he was/is  in no way concerned with the said Jewellery business of his father and he is running his Jewellery business alone since the year 2004.  His father died in the year 2007 and therefore there is no question of running business jointly.  In support of his said case, opposite party has filed a copy of money lending licence, issued under Section 12 of the Bengal Money Lender’s Act. From this copy of licence, we find that this licence was of the year 2004 for carrying on business of money lending and it was grantad in the name of the present opposite party Subrata Gopal Mallick. Complainant produced no documents to show that the O.P. was in  any way concerned with the said Jewellery shop of Gopal Chandra Mallick and  that the

Contd………………..P/4

 

 

 

( 4 )

opposite party also used to deal Jewellery bandak business along with his father Gopal Chandra Mallick, since deceased.   Some copies of receipts of such mortgage have been filed by the complainant  but these documents bear no signature of the opposite party.  In fact, complainant produced no document at all to show that the present opposite party gave loan to the complainant after keeping those golden articles of the complainant as mortgage.  Since there is no iota of evidence regarding keeping of mortgage of those  golden ornaments against loan with the O.P. ,  so  it cannot be held that the complainant deposited those golden articles with the opposite party for obtaining loan and as such we are constrained  to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a ‘consumer’ under the opposite party.  Since it is not proved that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite party, so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as against the present opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act and as such, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                     that the complaint case no.167/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated & Corrected by me

                              Sd/-                                   Sd/-                             Sd/-                         Sd/-

                          President                           Member                      Member                  President

                                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur