Judgment : 20.2.2017

            This is a complaint made by one Debidas Ganguly, son of late Santi Ranjan Ganguly, residing at 94, Ganguly Bagan, Kolkata-700047 against Teacher’s Welfre Credit & Holding Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Sri Swapan Kumar Ghosh, having his office at 10/99, Bijoygarh, Kolkata-700 032 and residing at P-110, Regent Estate, Kolkata-700 092, P.S.-Jadavpur, P.O.-Regent Estate, praying for refund for Rs.10,30,000/-  and refund of interest to the tune of Rs.1,59,650/-, further interest till realization of full amount, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that OP used to carry on business of a chit fund in the name of Teachers Welfare Credit & Holding Limited, having its head office at 10/99, Bijoygarh, Kolkata-700 032 and branch office at different places. OP collected money with promise of making payment of interest @ 12.5% since 1992 and during this period OP has been creating people’s belief. But, suddenly from February, 2014 onwards OP stopped payment of maturity and also I nterest on the monthly incoming scheme. OP had some agents and with the help of those persons used to collect crores of money from the subscribers. OP made advertisement with the help of a big picture of housing alleged to have started at Birbhum.

            Complainant paid money to OP. But, since the month of February, 2014, OP failed to repay the interest and also did not refund the maturity value. So, Complainant filed this complaint.

            OP No.1 & 2 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint petition. Further, OPs have stated that the case is filed at a premature stage because maturity amount were to be paid not before 2017-18. As such, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. OP filed questionnaire against affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant, against which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP filed affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire to which OP did not file reply, but filed written argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            First prayer of Complainant is refund of Rs.10,30,000/-. On perusal of the copy of the documents filed on behalf of the Complainant, it appears that he has filed one copy showing maturity of Rs.1,29,000/- which was due on 19.10.2015, further he has filed one copy showing that the maturity amount of Rs.20,000/- was due on 8.3.2015, another copy showing that the maturity was due on 9.1.2015 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, another copy showing due date of maturity on 28.2.2016 and the amount is Rs.2,00,000/-, another copy shows due date on 18.4.2015 and the amount is Rs.30,000/-, the other copy shows due date on 10.4.2014, amount is Rs.4,01,000/-, whereas Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.10,30,000/-. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition, Complainant has prepared himself list of documents wherein he has included the maturity date on 10.4.   belonging to 10.4.2017 and 4.3.2017. These two certificates are of Rs.5,01,000/-. So,  amount is deducted from the Rs.10,30,000/-. The amount comes to Rs.5,29,000/-. This complaint was filed on 3.5.2016. So, the question of including these two certificates was not at all in accordance with the grievances of the Complainant.

            As such, there is clear cut discrepancy in the document filed by the complainant and averment made in the complaint petition as well as affidavit-in-chief. The other prayers which Complainant has made is refund of the due interest 12.5% p.a. to the tune of Rs.1,59,650/- from February, 2014 till April, 2016 on the amount mentioned in the documents which he has mentioned in the Complaint petition. Since two documents as mentioned above again formed a part of the relief the question of granting interest at this stage does not arise.

            Accordingly, other prayers also cannot be allowed.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/192/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.