The case of the complainant is that Op no.1 is the company and other Ops are Executive Bodies of the company. Being attracted by the publication of the Opposite party , the complainant went there . The Opposite party insisted the complainant to invest and deposit money for purchasing some of the products or any other purposes including purchase of a flat.
In this way, being convinced the complainant deposited Rs.4,50,000/- towards advance product booking plan and Opposite party issued Pass Book . The complainant was also appointed as Agent of the oP . The complainant requested the oP for getting interest from the oPs for his expenses of personal requirements. The complainant rather requested the oP to get back the money but no reply from the oP side . With this incident Serampur P.S. case no. 385 of 2014 was started against the Ops and the same is continued and that case is pending. Hence this case for getting back the money.
Opposite party no. 6 and 8 and Ors appeared and filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations . Op no.8 states that it is upto the complainant to prove that she requires the mature plan and premature plan of her entire deposit already made with the oP no.1. It is also stated that it is the duty of the complainant to prove the involvement of all the parties as alleged by the complainant for taking money to allure complainant and others regarding deposits .
Complainant filed Xerox copy of documents by firisti 1) Letter to I.C.Serampur 2) ACJM Serampur court plaint, 3) Existing Project and 4) Product Booking and also filed Evidence in chief and WNA. Op filed Evidence in chief and WNA but did not file any documents.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oPs ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It appears from the Evidence in chief from the complainant that he deposited some amount of money as per his allegations before the oP no.1 ULTIMATE Product Booking Pass Book and the booking was made for the purpose of higher profit i.e. complainant made investment with the oP . The complainant does not come within the definition of Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Secondly , the complainant did not produce any original papers or Bank Pass Book to institute any prima facie case against Op. So, there is no sufficient evidence in favour of the complainant to prove deficiency in service of OP. Accordingly, as above the complainant’s case fails. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the C.C. NO. 235 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
