DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./276/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
13.12.2021 22.12.2021 31.07.2024
Complainant/s:- | SRI SUKANTA MONDAL, Son of Kaliprasad Mondal, of Vill. & P.O. Kolsur, P.S. Deganga, District North 24 Parganas, PIN – 743438. -Vs.- |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1. THE DIRECTOR, SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCTS RANGE LIMITED, having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, P.O – Aliganj, P.S. Lucknow – U.P. – 226024. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCTS RANGE LIMITED, having its Sector office at New Ashirbad Bhawan, Joygachhi, Jessore Road, P.O & P.S. Habra, North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743263. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCTS RANGE LIMITED, at Badamtala, Madhyamgram, P.O. & P.S. Madhyamgram, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata 700129. 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SEBI, L & T Chambers, 3rd Floor, 16 Camac Street, P.O & P.S. Shakespeare Saran, Kolkata – 700017. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to pay the matured value, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, litigation cost amounting to Rs. 10,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that he invested Rs. 1,00,000/- before the O.P No. 1-4 on 26/02/2013 and O.Ps issued two certificates regarding his aforesaid investment.
But after the maturity period O.Ps failed and neglected to pay the maturity value in favour of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
O.P No. 4 sent W/V by post against the present complaint. In their W/V they denied the entire allegations and further contended that there is not negligence on their part. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
During Trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. He also filed copy of certain documents which are verified at the time of hearing argument.
Decisions with reasons:-
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant, W/V filed by the O.P No. 4, affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant, BNA filed by the Complainant and copy of documents filed by the Complainant.
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for Complainant at length. We have carefully gone through the copy of documents lying on record.
On perusal of copy of aforesaid two certificates we find that aforesaid sum was invested under “Q Shop [Plan – H]”.
As per the said plan investor / Complainant invested Rs. 1,00,000/- before the O.P No. 1-3 in two accounts and O.P No. 1-3 issued two certificates regarding the said investment.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./276/2021
On careful perusal of aforesaid two certificates we find that Complainant may withdraw the aforesaid fund along with accrued interest after expiry of 72 months. So Complainant is entitled to maturity value after 72 months i.e. 6 years from the date of investment i.e. from 26/02/2013.
But Complainant alleged that after expiry of the said period O.P No. 1-3 failed and neglected to pay the matured value in favour of the Complainant.
Complainant in support of his case filed affidavit-in-chief. By the said affidavit-in-chief he corroborated the entire allegations made in the petition of complaint. O.P No. 4 not yet appeared in this record physically nor filed any questionnaire. Accordingly we find that aforesaid affidavit-in-chief is nothing but unchallenged testimony. So we do not find any reason to disbelieve the same.
Placing reliance upon the aforesaid two certificates in respect of investment of the Complainant @ Rs. 50,000/- each, we find that Complainant was entitled to get back the matured the value @ Rs. 1,06,635/- each on 26/02/2019.
Accordingly we find that Complainant was entitled in total Rs. 2,13,270/-. But O.P No. 1-3 did not return the same in favour of the Complainant. Even they did not return the same in favour of the Complainant inspite of service of legal notice upon them.
Their aforesaid act are nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/276/2021 is allowed on contest against the O.P No. 4 and allowed ex-parte against the O.P No. 1-3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.Ps in favour of the Complainant.
O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs. 2,13,270/- (two lakhs thirteen thousand two hundred seventy only) in favour of the Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity of the aforesaid investment i.e. from 26/02/2019 to till the date of actual payment preferably within 45 days from this day, failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.Ps jointly or severally are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) in favour of the Complainant as compensation for his harassment, mental pain and agony positively within 45 days from this day, failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
