Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Chandra Guin, Member.
The fact of the instant case in brief which is that Complainant, Mr. Bikram Saha had contacted the Director, Money on Mobile Company (O.P. No.1) having seen an advertisement who appointed him as area distributor of the said Company in the year 2014 and he was carrying on his business under the name and style Sadhana Communication at the abovesaid address since then. On 15.05.2017 Complainant received a phone call from a stranger who requested him to be a retail businessman of the said Company but he told him to contact the Director of the Company for the same. Therefore, Complainant informed the matter to the O.P. No.1 in detail having learnt the name and address of the stranger ( O.P. No.2) and for repeated request from him. Thus, O.P. No.2 was allowed to carry on the same business by the O.P. No.1. Then O.P. No.2 wanted a load request of Rs. 36,792/- from the director of the O.P. No.1 Company to extend the business for which O.P. No.1 transferred the said amount to the account of O.P. No.2 without verification and investigation on 17.05.2017. The said amount was withdrawn by the O.P. No.2 forthwith. The total episode of transaction happened without the knowledge of the Complainant.
After this incident the O.P. No.1 informed the Complainant over phone that Rs. 36,792/- had been transferred to the account of O.P. No.2 from the account of O.P. No.1 and the amount should be paid by the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 also told the Complainant to pay the said amount and threatened him by saying that a law suit would be filed against him if payment was not made.
Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 withdrew Rs. 14,500/- from the account of the Complainant without any intimation on 18.05.2017. Then Complainant wanted to know the reason for withdrawal of the amount from O.P. No.1 but O.P. No.1 did not reply for the same. So the Complainant lodged a complaint with Mathabhanga P.S. on 20.05.2017 having G.D. No.963117 for taking legal action. He also served a notice vide Ref. No.2/N/77/17 dated 20.12.17 through his Advocate to the O.Ps which was received by them.
After receiving the legal notice, Legalogic consulting on behalf of O.P. No.1 replied that their clients representative would visit the Office of the Complainant’s Advocate to resolve the matter amicably within 10 days from the receipt of this reply and till that time the load of Rs. 14,500/- would be kept on hold but O.P. No.2 did not honour to his said words.
After lapse of almost seven months when there was no visit of representative of O.P. No.1 and finding no other alternative Complainant filed this instant case before this Commission for having proper justice. He prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to refund of Rs. 14,500/- with interest and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment, Rs. 25,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?
- To what other relief if any, Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
It appear from the record and documents that the Complainant, Mr. Bikram Saha was appointed as an area distributor of the company named “Money on Mobile” and carried on his online business with “Sadhana Communication” from the year, 2014. Mr. Biswajit Das (O.P. No.2) was also appointed as retail business man of the company by the request made by the Complainant to the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 placed a load request to the O.P. No.1 to extend his business for which a sum of Rs.36,792/- was transferred to the account of the O.P. No.2 by the O.P. No.1. O.P. No.2 withdrew the same amount immediately. Thereafter O.P. No.1 withdrew a sum of Rs.14,500/- from the account of the Complainant. On reply to the legal notice of the Complainant, the O.P. No.1 expressed his willingness to resolve the matter amicably within 10 days from the receipt of the notice and he also stated in his reply that Rs.14,500/- which was debited from the account of the Complainant would be kept on hold. But neither the O.P.No.1 nor O.P.No.2 came forward to resolve the matter and turned up before this Commission to contest the case although they had received the summon of this Commission. In order to substantiate the case the Complainant adduced sufficient evidence.
So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. After assessing the pleading of the Complainant and the evidence on record, it is found that the Complainant has been able to substantiate the case up to the hilt in as much as the case is heard ex-parte. The entire evidence stand unchallenged and undiscarded.
In the result, the case succeeds ex-parte.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.14,500/- towards withdrawal amount from the Complainant’s account by the O.P. No.1, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and Rs.10.500/- towards cost of litigation.
O.Ps (O.P. No.1 & 2) are directed to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the order, failing which the O.Ps will be liable for payment of 6% interest on the decreetal awarded money to the Complainant.
The case is thus disposed of ex-parte.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
