Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
This case has been filed by the complainant against the O.Ps under section 12of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The fact of the case is that the complainant , complainant invested into the company of the OPs under Q Shop Plan-H scheme and has got one certificate from the OPs on 29/5/12 and as per certificate the complainant paid total global advance money amounting to Rs. 86,550/ in total for buying complete range of goods chosen from the available brochures of the OPs within the plan period of six years. As per submission of the complainant, the OPs did not deliver any goods/products during the said period of six years as per their specification of said certificates. The complainant after the expiry of the said plan period of 6 years deposited all the original papers and documents including six certificates to OP 1. OP 1 instead of receiving the said documents assured the complainant that after few months later they will call the complainant for issuance of cheque in his favour. But till date they did not do the same for which the complainant sent one letter dated 02/3/2020 through speed post to the OPs and requested them to paid him the total amount of Rs. 86,550/ but in vain. Complainant prays for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ ,refund of Rs. 86550/, simple rate of interest upon all dues amount till realization and Rs. 20000/ as litigation cost from the OPs.
DEFENCE CASE :
The opposite parties appeared their appearance by filing written version denying inter alia all the material allegations leveled against them. As per version of the OPs, they have no ill motive or malafide intention for not making the payment rather they are unable to make payment the payment since there is an embargo order passed by Hon’ble Apex court. Te OPs further state that despite several requests after receiving the legal notice this complainant does not produce original Sahara certificate, KYC before the OP for internal process with regard to disbursement of payment.
According to the OPs the complainant never visited to the office of the OP to submit the original certificates along with KYC for disbursement of payment so the OPs are not neglected and there is no unfair trade practice that has been done by these OPs.
As per submission of the OPs the complainant fails to prove his case, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The Opposite parties filed only written version.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA., evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument and written version of the opposite parties shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the case.
Heard argument of the complainant side at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer for the complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
As one of the opposite parties has its office address within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission, so as per section 11of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,this commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
Admittedly, the OPs appear to have submitted written version on 20/11/2020 but it appears strange to see as to why they have not contested the present complainant giving rise to dispose of the instant application ex parte. It appears that the plan period was for six years on and from the date of receipt of service centre seal on 29/5/2012, i.e. from the date of receipt of the number 562019427809 as it appears from annxure A. on perusal of annxure A it appears that it was a plan for the period of six years and the total accumulated LBP benefit will be 2.13/2.26/2.35/3.84/3.97 and 4.06 times of global advance and is based on certain/specific consumption pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” goods and or hospitality products. The period of calculation appears to have started on and from 29/5/2012 as at it appears from the receipt of total global advance money of said certificate amounting to Rs.86550/ .
Admittedly, the time started for supply of complete range of goods chosen from the available brochures of the OPs with plan period of six years which appears to have expired on 29/5/2018. But the commission has been pleased to accept the present application condoning the delay of 94 days “due to state wide lock down….”as it appears from order no. 3 dated 16/9/20.
This commission has taken into consideration about the statement of the OPs in their written version on 23/11/2020 wherein it appears that the OPs have given an explanation as to why they failed to make the payment because of non supply of the articles “ since there was an embargo order passed by the hon’ble Apex court. Much has been stated on their behalf about visit of the office of the OP along with some original documents to make the process for disbursement of payment in para 3 of their w.v. but fact remains that nothing has been shown on behalf of the OPs which may satisfy this commission that there was an earnest endeavour to supply any goods as per brochures which is marked as annxure A. though much has been stated about the excuse for non supply of goods and no unfair trade practice of the OPs but the same has not been substantiated by submission of any single paper.
On the basis of the facts and figures as well as the documents referred to herein above the written version of the OPs cannot but be accepted as a mere scrap of paper entitling the petitioner to succeed in the present case.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Complaint case no 153 of 2020 be and the same is decreed exparte against the OPs.
The complainant do get Rs.86550/ along with 9% interest from the OPs from the date of initiation of this instant complaint case within 45 days from date:
The complainant do further get Rs.20000/ For harassment and Rs.5000/ towards litigation cost from the OPs within 45days from date.
In case OPs fail to comply the order passed by this commission complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law after completion of the due date of 45 days from date.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
