IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/137/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
08.09.2016 03.10.2016 13.07.2023
Complainant: 1. Chhotan Das
2. Khokan Ghosh
3. Sanjit Biswas
4. Karuna Mondal
5. Subhash Mandal
6. Satyajit Chowdhury
7.Alpana Mondal
8.Binay Rowh
9.Bikash Routh
10.Sukanta Mondal
11.Abhijit Ghosh
12.Subha Biswas
13.Tanay Kumar Ray
14.Sona Singha
15.Naba Kumar Swarnakar
16.Sona Singha
17.Kanishtha Mondal
18.Rabindranath Sarkar
19.Owipen Sarkar
20.Sandhya Rani Das
21. Nepal Halder
22. Joytsna Rani Halder
23. Ramnath Sadhu
24. Pinki Das
25. Basanti Halder
26. Shashti Halder
27. Mithu Halder
28. Ranjan Halder
29. Basanti Halder
30. Biswajit Rudra
31. Sanchita Mondal
32. Santi Mondal
33. Rajendra Nath Ray
34. Anima Mondal
35. Purna Chandra Mondal
36. Rupali Mondal
37. Sanmani Mondal
38. Bipul Mondal
39. Koushalla Mondal
40. Subhodh Mondal
41. Debasish Halder
42. Mangala Rudra
43. Goutam Ghosh
44. Nepal Halder
45. Abir Chandra Saha
46. Tushar Kanti Das
47. kartik Dey
48. Susma Saha
49. Susma Saha
50. Urmila Saha
51. Rajesh Saha
52. Bipul Sarkar
53. Bipul Sarkar
54. Padma Sardar
55. Surya Marjit
56. Biswajit Halder
57. Aloka Halder
58. Thanda Halder
59. Sumi Das
60. Ashoka Halder
61. Maya Das
62. Rabi Bapari
63. Rabi Bapari
64. Alpana Halder
65. Alpana Halder
66. Alpana Halder
67. Alpana Halder
68. Sarmistha Halder
69. Sarmistha Halder
70. Shila Roy
71. Shila Roy
72. Rabi Bapari
73. Rabi Bapari
74. Rabi Bapari
75. Rabi Bapari
76. Rabi Bapari
77. Madhabi Das
78. Santanu Saha
79. Tinku Karmakar
80. Purnima Majhi
81. Chayna Ghosh
82. Salaka Halder
83. Santa Halder
84. Samadhi Pal
All of P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party The Branch Manager,
Togo Retailer Marketing Ltd.
Subhas Avenue, Debnath Market, 3rd Floor
Opp of Ragnaghat Municipality
P.O. & P.S.-Ranaghat
Dist-Nadia, Pin-741201
Agent/Advocate for all the Complainants : Abhijit Sarkar
Agent/Advocate for the O.P. : 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 Chhotan Das and Ors.(here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against The Branch Manager, Togo Retailer Marketing Ltd. (here in after referred to as the O.P.) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainants deposited their money with the O.P. for their financial gain and the O.P. issued Registration Certificate against all the certificates. All the certificates started maturing in the year of 2015 and the Complainants as per the assurance of the O.P. expected to get the matured value in total Rs. 1846670/-. The Complainants many times went to the Office of the O.P. to get the matured amount but the O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant since today. Finding no other alternative the Complainants filed the instant case for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After paper publication dated 02.09.2017 in the newspaper namely Sukhabar the O.P. did not appear before this Commission to controvert the plea of the Complainant. So, the case proceeded ex-parte vide Order No. 16 dated 04.11.2017.
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 Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
As per the petition of the complaint the Complainants deposited different amounts of money on different dates before the O.P. and the O.P. issued certificates for that and the maturity date of investment of the Complainants are different. The Complainants claimed total Rs. 18,46,670/- as maturity value. But they filed Xerox Copy of documents which are illegible.
After paper publication dated 02.09.2017 in the newspaper namely Sukhabar the O.P. did not appear before this Commission to controvert the plea of the Complainant. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
It appears from the case record that the documents filed by Complainant is not legible and the Complainants are directed to file original documents (vide Order No. 39, dated 21.11.2019) but till date the Complainants have not appeared and produced any original documents though they have received several opportunities to file the same.
In this circumstances this Commission is declined to pass any order due to want of proper documents as the Xerox copies of the documents are illegible and the Complainants are found absent since long. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 08.09.2016 and admitted on 03.10.2016. 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 fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/137/2016 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. but under the circumstances without any order as to costs with a liberty to file afresh subject to the law of limitation.
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.
