Sri Agradoot Kamila,

son of Pankaj Kumar Kamila,

residing at village – Uttar Podrah ( Natunpally ),

P.O. Podrah, P.S. Sankrail,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711109.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sumangal Industries Ltd.,

having its registered office at

Chatterjee International Centre, 9^th floor,

Room no. A-11 & H.O. 20^th floor, Room no. A-11 & A-12,

33A, Jawarharlal Nehru Road,

Kolkata – 700071.

2.      The Director,

Sumangal Industries Ltd.,

having its registered office

at Chatterjee International Centre,

9^th floor, Room no. A-11 & H.O. 20^th floor,

Room no. A-11 & A-12, 33A, Jawaharal Nehru Road,

Kolkaa – 700071.

3.      MA Bhairabi Himghar Private Ltd.,

having registered office at Dilakash, Janagipara,

Hooghly, associated with the  Sumangal Industris Ltd.

4.      The Branch Manager,

Bank of India, Manprasanna Appartment,

Chunavati More Andul, P.S. Sankrail,

District -  Howrah,

PIN  – 711109.----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Sri Agradoot Kamila U/S 12 of the

C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant  has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. no. 1 to return Rs. 42,000/- and Rs. 28,000/-  together with interest and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- as the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 did not pay back the maturity value of the flexi potato purchase bond wherein the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- by purchasing the same bond from the O.P. no. 1.  

2.                  The o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 in spite of receiving the notice did not file the written

version. So the case was heard ex parte against them.   

3.                  The O.P. no. 4, Branch Manager, Bank of India, contested the case by filing

written version and contended interalia that the bank has been falsely implicated in this case as he has  no nexus with the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. From the enclosures it

is evident that the complainant purchased flexi potato purchase bond of Rs. 30,000/- on 06-03-2012 with maturity value of Rs. 42,000/- and another identical bond of Rs. 20,000/- on 27-03-2012 with the maturity value of Rs. 28,000/-. The bank statement justifies the said purchase of the bond. Subsequently the O.P. no. 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 42,000/- being cheque no. 689083 on 05-06-2013  which subsequently dishonoured by the O.P. no. 4 bank. The other cheque for Rs. 28,000/- being no. 689084 dated 28-06-2013 issued by the O.P. no. 1 met the same fate.

6.                  Therefore, it is palpable that the O.P. no. 1 in fact duped the complainant to

purchase the flexi potato purchase bond and ultimately cheated the complainant in  issuing two cheques knowing fully well that those will be dishonoured. Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.  

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 219  of 2013 ( HDF  219 of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte against O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 with costs and dismissed against O.P. no. 4 without cost

      The O.P. no. 1 on behalf of O.P. nos. 2 & 3 be  directed to return Rs. 42,000/- and  Rs. 28,000/-  being the maturity value of the two bonds purchased by the complainant from the O.P. no. 1 together with the interest till full realization.  

      The o.p. no. 1 be further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain,  agony and prolonged harassment.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.P. no. 1.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                    President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.