West Bengal

Siliguri

62/S/2014

SRIMATI JAYANTI BARMAN, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURAKSHA FARMING AND INDUSTRIES - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

Consumer Case No.62/S/2014

 

Order No.19.

Dt.01.10.15.        The complainant’s case in brief is that the OP has a branch office at Siliguri, and the complainant No.1 is a monthly depositor with the OP.  The complainant No.1 has deposited Rs.18,000/- over a period of twelve months in monthly instalment of Rs.1,500/- and the OP No.1 assured to pay her Rs.21,300/- at the time of maturity.  The matured amount was payable on 15.07.2013, but the date was extended to 24.01.2014, but even after that the complainant No.1 did not get any return from the OP.  It is also case of the complainant that the complainant Nos.2, 3 & 4 also deposited large amount with the OP, but they did not get the maturity value.  Accordingly, the complainant filed this case praying that OP be directed to refund the respective amounts to them and they pray for compensation and cost of litigation. 

The case has been heard ex-parte. 

To prove this case the complainant has filed four sheet of paper showing payment by Jayanti Barman in the column of Rs.21,300/-,  another copies are of Amrita Debnath, Rupali Mandal and S. Banik.  These papers are Xerox copy, no seal and signature in the respective column.  There is no paper regarding deposition of money to the OP.  The complainants have filed four papers styled as Product Adjustment Final Voucher.  This paper does not prove that the complainant paid Rs.18,000/- to the OP and OP agreed to pay Rs.21,3000/-.  Pay date is 24.01.2013 and pay date of S. Banik is 24.01.2014.  These documents have not been proved by the complainant as per law.  The signature in the Product Adjustment Final Voucher is not dated signature.  These documents are suspicious in the eye of this Forum.  In the firisty of Product Adjustment Final Voucher no receipt date. 

The complainant also filed one document amended plaint without signature of the complainant in the respective column.  There is no signature of the advocate.  There is signature of the complainant in the verification column of affidavit.

The complainant Jayanti Barman did not file any affidavit-in-chief, but one S. Banik has filed evidence-in-chief. 

Argument has been filed on behalf of Jayanti Barman. 

The record shows that there is no reliable evidence regarding payment by Jayanti Barman to the OP and there is no evidence that OP has taken the money as alleged by the complainant No.1.

 

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

 

 

Even Jayanti Barman did not file her affidavit-in-chief supporting contentions of the petition.  Other complainants also did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove their cases and case of complainant No.1 also. 

Accordingly, after considering the material on record, which insufficient and fails to prove the case, we are inclined to pass the order for dismissal of the complainant’s case. 

Hence, it is

                                      O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.62/S/2014 is dismissed ex-parte for want of insufficient evidence. 

Let copies of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost. 

 

 

             -Member-                                                -President-