Judgment : Dt.29.8.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member.
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act by Sri Supratim Sarkar, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties – (1) The Teachers’ Welfare Credit and Holding Ltd., (2) The Managing Director of The Teachers’ Welfare Credit & Holding Ltd., (3) The Branch Manager, The Teachers’ Welfare Credit & Holding Ltd.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that being approached as well as convinced by the opposite party Nos.2 & 3, the Managing Director and the Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1 limited company, the complainant invested his money with the opposite party No.1 in favour of him (and his wife), by way of fixed deposit of Rs.3,55,000/- and Monthly Income Scheme for Rs.3,00,000/- on different dates from 10.12.2012 to 15.07.2016. It is alleged by the Complainant that since February, 2016, the opposite party No.1 has not been disbursing any MIS benefit in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant has stated that he made attempts on several occasions to meet the opposite party Nos.2 & 3, but was prevented from doing so and subsequently found the office of the opposite party under lock and key and, therefore, finding no other alternative he tried to lodge a complaint with P.S.-Jadavpur but was refused by the concerned officer.
The Complainant as to relief by filing the instant petition of complaint has prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,55,000/- only as to refund of the invested amount, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Notices were served but the opposite parties did not turn up. So, the case was heard ex-parte against opposite parties vide order No.6 dt.3.7.2017.
The Complainant adduced evidence on affidavit.
Decision with reasons
On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the Complainant annexed Photostat copies of Money Receipt issued by the opposite party No.2 on 10.12.2012, in favour of Keya Sarkar for Rs.5,000/-, on 2.2.2013 in favour of Keya Sarkar for Rs.15,000/-, on 13.2.2013 in favour of Keya Sarkar for Rs.10,000/-, on 14.02.2013 in favour of Keya Sarkar Rs. Rs.5,000/-, on 13.6.2013 in favour of Keya Sarkar Rs.45,000/-, on 8.7.2013 in favour of Keya Sarkar Rs.20,000/-, on 15.7.2016 in favour of Supratim Sarkar for Rs.3,00,000/-, on 4.1.2013 in faour of Supratim Sarkar for Rs.90,000/-, on 14.3.2013 in favour of Supratim Sarkar for Rs.50,000/-, on 28.2.2013 in favour of Supratim Sarkar and Keya Sarkar for Rs.20,000/-, on 20.3.2013 in favour of Supratim Sarkar and Keya Sarkar for Rs. 30,000/-, on 16.4.2013 in favour of Supratim Sarkar and Keya Sarkar for Rs.20,000/-, on 13.6.2013 in favour of Supratim Sarkar for Rs.10,000/- and on 9.1.2016 in favour of Supratim Sarkar and Keya Sarkar for Rs.40,000/-.
The Complainant has stated in his petition of complaint that he has invested his money along with his wife. But, he has not made his wife a party to the instant case. Keya Sarkar along with the Complainant. Supratim Sarkar is joint holders in respect of four accounts, Keya Sarkar is the sole holder of 6 accounts and Supratim Sarkar is the sole holder of four accounts in respect of which the investment were made and, therefore, the Complainant alone cannot claim the deposited amount and the same should not be disbursed in favour of him.
However, it is found that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in total was invested solely by the Complainant but we are inclined to pass no order as to the said amount since passing order in piece meal manner is not permissible under the law.
Under such state of affairs, we are of opinion that the instant case is not entertainable due to non joinder of necessary parties i.e. the joint holders of the accounts in respect of which the claimed amount has been deposited.
In the result, the petition does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That the Consumer complaint being No.CC/219/2017 is dismissed ex-parte without cost due to non joinder of necessary party.
