IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/130/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
26.08.2016 30.08.2016 03.05.2023
Complainant: 1. Aparna Bhattacharjee
2. Dilip Kumar Sarkar-3
3. Susmita Majumder-1
4. Chhaya Guha-1
5. Madhumita Chandra
6. Nabamita Chandra
7. Alu Biswas
8. Manik Das
9. Chapala Murmu
10. Asharani Das
11. Gour Chandra Das
12. Jhantu Sk
13. Chaya Hazra
14. Shila Ghosh-3
15. Nasiruddin Saikh
16. Adhir Kumar Saha
17. Aloke Nath Mukherjee
18. Anjana Mandal
19. Shila Sengupta
20. Chaina Pramanik-1
21. Pulak Chatterjee-2
22. Sangita Banerjee
23. Sima Banerjee
24. Suchanda Chakraborty
25. Mousumi Chakraborty
26. Sisir Kumar Das
27. Sukriti Roy
28. Sumitra Mondal-1
29. Sujata Chakraborty
30. Uttam Kundu
31. Biswanath Chakraborty
32. Shikha Chakraborty
33. Samim Hosen
34. Sahajan Sk
35. Barun Kumar Chatterjee-1
36. Nimai Sarkar-1
37. Nabanita Acharyya
38. Basanti Mondal
39. Bukhen Pradhan
40. Belu Konai
41. Bapi Sharma
42. Asim Mondal
43. Bornale Ghosh
44. Shefali Rajbanshi
45. Sumita Hansda
46. Basudeb Ghosh
47. Nirmal Das-1
48. Rabindra Nath Sarkar
49. Mangala Rudra
50. Kajal Kansobanik
51. Sanchita Mondal
52. Tanmoy Mondal
53. Jagashri Chowdhury
54. Ramnath Sadhu
55. Tapash Singha
56. Pallabi Sarkar
57. Sabita Banik
58. Ranjit Nath
59. Sukchand Ghosh
60. Koushik Ghosh
61. Chhotan Pradhan
62. Natai Pradhan
63. Arati Roy
64. Sunil Konai
65. Buddhadeb Mondal
66. Hiren Mondal
67. Sagar Pradhan
68. Tuktuki Pradhan
69. Sukchand Konai
70. Goutam Konai
71. Fatik Konai
72. Ganesh Konai
73. Aparna Konai
74. Shankari Debnath
75. Bipad Bhanjan Pradhan
76. Babu Bhunimali
77. Chotan Das
78. Sunita Das
79. Biplab Khetra
80. Dasarath Dutta
81. Bidhan Mondal
82. Bidhan Sharma
83. Uttam Sharma
84. Nipen Ghosh
85. Khakan Ghosh
86. Rakesh Dutta
87. Ranjit Sing
88. Arup Dutta
89. Babi Ghosh
90. Susmita Majumder
91. Surojit Mondal
92. Sujata Chakraborty
93. Manju Dey
94. Asim Kumar Rakshit
All of P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party The Branch Manager,
Togo Retail Marketing Ltd,
Subhas Avenue,
Debnath Market 3rd, Floor, ,
Opp. Ranaghat Municipality,
P.O. & P.S. – Ranaghat,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-741201.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Saugata Biswas
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : None
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Aparna Bhattacharjee and Ors. (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against The Branch Manager, Togo Retail Marketing Ltd, (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainants deposited their money to O.P. on different dates and on different schemes and the O.P. issued registration certificate against all the investments. All the certificates issued by the O.P. started maturing on different dates from 2011 to 2016 and as per the petition of complaint, the complainants were entitled to get their maturity amounts as per their investments. The complainants went to the Office of the O.P. on several times and requested to refund the maturity amount but the O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants since long.
Finding no other alternative the complainants filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notice the O.P. did not appear to controvert the plea of the Complainants. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
On the basis of the complaint the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
1. Are the Complainants consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
The complainants for their financial gains deposited different amounts of money to O.P. on different dates and on different schemes and O.P. issued registration certificates against all the investments. All the certificates started maturing from July, 2011 to July, 2016. The complainants after the date of maturity of the certificates visited the Office of the O.P. but had not received any matured amounts.
After due service of the notice the O.P. did not appear to controvert the plea of the Complainant for the reason best known to him. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. vide Order No. 16 dated 29.11.2017.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we find that Complainants had filed a chart showing their investments, though in the evidence on affidavit the Complainants stated that they would get their matured value in total i.e., a sum of Rs. 19,81,878/- which will be evident from Xerox copy of all the certificates annexed herewith but they had neither filed any Xerox copy of certificates nor produced any original certificates at the time of hearing. On the basis of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate we are of the view that different complainants invested different amounts on different dates for their financial gain. But they had filed the instant case claiming an amount of Rs. 19,81,878/- which is not possible to separate what amount one had paid and what would be his/her matured amount due to want of documents. Such being the position it is not possible for this Commission to identify the investment of each person and their matured values and date of maturity as the complainants had invested different amount of money on different dates as per petition of complaint. So, we are of the view that the instant case should be dismissed with a liberty to file afresh.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 26.08.2016 and admitted on 30.08.2016. This Commission 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 Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/130/2016 be and same is dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. but without any order as to costs and with a liberty to file afresh.
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 Member President.
