IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/155/2015
Date of Filing: 06.11.15 Date of Final Order:14.02.19
Complainant:
- Anarul Sk S/o Khoda Boksh
- Sabina Bibi W/o Mani Sk
- Seikh Kiyarul S/o Arjed
- Asarul Seikh S/o Piyarul Seikh
- Sobirul Seikh S/o Piyarul Sk
- Samaun Sk S/o Taju Sk.
- Kemela Bibi W/o Syed
- Atasa S/o Hasibul
- Renuka D/o Taju Sk.
- Mondal Radharani W/o Nakul
- Amin Sk S/o Taju Sk
- Sujina Bibi W/o Manuar Sk
- Asan Ali S/o Mansur Ali
- Haoya Khatun W/o Duhkhu
- Aseaur Bewa W/o Late Aslam Sk
- Asiya W/o Duhkhu
All of PO-Rampur, PS-Bhagwangola,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742123
- Moinul Sk S/o Bakkar Sk.
- Karina Bibi D/o Tujamel Sk.
Both of PO&PS- Jiaganj,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742123
- Pritajit Ghosh D/o Dwarik Ghosh
PO-Sandarpur, PS-Bhagwangola,
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.The Branch Manager
Prayag Branch Office
Jiaganj, Hatibagan, Branch Code-126,
PO & PS-Jiaganj, Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742123
2. The Branch Manager
Prayag Info Tech Hi Rise Limited
Regd Office at P-45, Bhupen Roy Road,
Kol-34
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Sougata Biswas
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. Pranab Kr. Das
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati……........ .......President.
Smt.Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Mrs. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Anarul Sk. & Others (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, Prayag Branch Office (here in after referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service.
The case of the complaint is as follows:
That the OP Company is running the business of money laundering having its Branch Office mentioned in the petition of complaint. That the OP informed the agent and the policy holders that if they deposit their money to the Company (O.P.) they will be benefited. That being assured the Complainants deposited their money as stated in the petition of complaint to OP No.1 in different dates on different scheme and OP No. 2 issued registration certificate against all the investment. That all the certificate started maturing in the month of Nov’14 to Dec’15. The xerox copy of the above certificate is annexed herewith. That the Complainants many a time went to the office of Op No. 1 to get the refund of matured amount but OP No.1 did not pay any heed to their request and they also visited the office of OP No.2 for the refund of their matured amount but all went in vain. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case for appropriate relief.
OP No.1 filed W/V and OP No.2 has not appeared after service of the notice to contest the case.
OP No.1 has stated in the W/V denying the allegations of the Complainant but ultimately the OP No.1 also did not appeared to contest the case and no evidence on affidavit has been filed by the OPs in this case. So the case preceded ex-parte against them.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and whether is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
In this case the Complainant have filed examination in chief on affidavit. But the OPs have not filed any evidence on affidavit and they have not contested the case. So the case has preceded ex-parte.
On perusal of petition of complaint, W/V by the OP No.1 and examination- in -chief filed on behalf of the complaint and materials on record, it is found that the OPs have not rendered any services at all, as mentioned in the certificate issued by them. But as per the certificate issued by the O.P some financial facility would be provided to the complainant for an unused room From the case record it is found that the case has been admitted after admission hearing and as per the spirit of Consumer Protection Act the complainant in this case is a consumer.
Considering the Complainants as consumers as OP promised to render the services this instant case has been allowed.
OPs are service providers but failed to provide services as per their terms and condition and the complainants being borrower of such service became consumer of the O.Ps. After filing w/v O.Ps had not appeared, so the case has been heard ex-parte.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainants, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of services on the part of the OPs by not providing due facility as per their terms and conditions and the claim of the Complainants are justified . The evidence of the complainants are ex-parte and it has not been challenged and we have no other alternative but to accept the plea of the complainant. The Complainants are entitled for relief as per the documents filed by them.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 06.11.15 and admitted on 11.12.15. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct, Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/155/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed ex-parte against the OPs.
The Ops are directed to pay to the complainants in the following manner:
- Anarul Sk.- Rs.14,699/-
- Sabina Bibi- Rs. 7,349/- & Rs. 7,349/- (vide two documents)
- Seikh Kiyarul- Rs. 9,144/-
- Asarul Seikh- Rs. 3,960/-
- Sabirul Seikh- Rs. 3,960/-
- Samaun Sk- Rs.7,920/-
- Kemela Bibi- Rs.14,699/-
- Atasa - Rs.13,003/-
- Renuka- Rs.4,572/-
- Mondal Radharani- Rs.4,572/-
- Amin Sk.- Rs.13,716/-
- Sujina Bibi- Rs14,040/-
- Asan Ali - Rs.-20,000/- & / 50,000/- (vide two documents)
- Haoya Khatun- Rs.40,000/-
- Aseaur Bewa- Rs.7,000/-
- Asiya- Rs.44,084/-
- Moinul Sk.- Rs.7,349/-
- Karina Bibi – 4,572/-
- Pritajit Ghosh- 22,860/-
The OPs are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- to each of the complainant and a litigation cost of Rs 5000/-only to the complainants.
All such payment shall be made within 3 months from the date of this order failing which the compliant are at liberty to file the execution.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
