This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant. In brief complainant’s case is that opposite Party no. 1 has been running various financial company in various names and the O.P.no. 1 recruited many agents and Manager and opened Branch office at Chinsurah Bunokalitala under Chinsurah Police Station and being convinced by the words of agent of O.P.no. 1 complainant deposited his good money in various schemes of the deposit party. Initially the complainant started to get some return and subsequently he came to know that the company is black listed company alike Sarada, and within a few months the O.P.no. 1 closed their company at Chinsurah Branch and there after the complainant tried to meet the agent and the company’s representative, but could not find anybody as they flew away from Chinsurah. At last the complainant met the Manager and agent of the company and demanded to refund him all the deposited money with upto date interest accrued thereon and they told complainant that they will pay all the dues after selling the assets of the O.P.no. 1 but could not manage it as the matter is subjudice.

            It is also stated by the complainant that the Agent and Manager are also liable for return back of the entire deposited money  of complainant  along with upto date interest accrued thereon as such the Manager and agent of the company directly received the entire deposited amount by the complainant and issued necessary receipts from their end.

            Complainant through the complaint petition has prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and maturity value with interest @ 10% thereupon along with compensation @ 10% over the total amount and to give necessary relief as may deem fit and proper.

            The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as levelled against them. The opposite party no. 1 & 2 submit that they came to know that in the Lok Sabha it was resolved for indulging in Penal/MLM Scheme for 73 companies in West Bengal and the respondent no. 2 is also comes under the above 73 companies and in furtherance to that the Additional Secretary, Finance Department and Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamp of Revenue, West Bengal on 10/05/2013 Vide Memo. No. 1738/(19)/IM-101/2013 requested to refuse acceptance of presentation of any kind of documents any of the aforesaid 73 companies or on behalf of them until further order.  But the said notification was issued without giving any opportunity to the opposite party no.1 to explain its stand even the said notification was not served upon the opposite party no.1. Subsequently the opposite party no.1.  was able to get the document.

                        That when opposite party no.1 came to know about the aforesaid embargo, challenging the said Memo dated 10/05/2013 being no. 1738(19)/IL-101/2013 filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta being W .P. No. 15270 (W) of 2015 praying inter alia the following reliefs:

1. A writ in the nature of or in the nature of Mandamus and / or orders or order and /or directions or direction like nature commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind and withdraw the purported order date 6^th May, 2013 and Memo bearing no. 1738/IM-101/2013 as the same is unconstitutional.
2. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and / or orders or order and / or directions or direction like nature commanding the respondents to forthwith accept the documents presented by the petitioner for registration of deed of conveyance and to register the documents as per the procedure laid down by law.
3. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and or orders or order and /or directions or direction like nature commanding the respondents to certify and transmit the records relating to the instant case by this Hon’ble Court and upon perusal of the records to quash and / or set aside any of the recommendation       ,  orders, directions listing gradation declared as per the purported order dated 6^th May, 2013 and pursuant thereto and Memo No. 1738/IL-101/2013 dated 10^th May, 2013 in order to render conscionable justice.
4. A writ of or in the nature of Prohibition and/or orders or order and /or directions or direction of like nature prohibiting the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the purported order dated 6^th May, 2013 and pursuant thereto the Memo No. 1738/IM-101/2013 dated 10^th May, 2013.
5. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus and / or orders or order and / or directions or direction of like nature declaring the purported order dated 6^th May, 2013 and pursuant thereto the Memo No. 1738/IM-101/2013 dated 10^th May, 2013 bad, null and void as the same is unconstitutional.
6. Rule NISI in terms of prayers (A) to (E) above.
7. Interim order restraining the respondent’s authorities from giving any effect or further effect to the purported order dated 6^th May, 2013 and pursuant thereto the Memo No. 1738/IM-101/2013 dated 10^th May, 2013 till the disposal of this application.
8. An order of stay do issue staying the operation of the purported order dated 6^th may, 2013 and pursuant to thereto the Memo No. 1738/IM-101/2013 dated 10^th May, 2013 till the disposal of this application.
9. Ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (G) and (H).
10. Such further or other order or orders be pleased and /or direction or directions be given as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
11. Such further order or orders be pleased and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

O.P. 1 & 2 have filed written version.

O.P. 1 & 2 also state that aforesaid Writ Petition is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

O.P. 1& 2 further state that O.P.1 and other sister concern companies appear before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the aforesaid public interest litigation and filed its affidavit voluntarily disclosing vg it assets and liabilities. Ultimately O.P.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.

            The opposite party No.3 has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as levelled against him and prays for dismissal of the instant case.  He states that he is merely an Agent and only duty of his was to collect the cash from the consumer and to deposit the same before the company.

            The opposite party No. 4 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as levelled against him and has prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

            It may be noted that the complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but a replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            Further it may be pointed out that out of four O.Ps.  none of them has filed their respective evidence on affidavit.

            Complainant has filed written notes of argument.  On behalf of any of the four opposite parties no brief note of argument has been filed. 

            Further it may be noted that O.P. no. 1, 2 and 3 did not even participate in hearing argument.

            The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the opposite party no. 4 was heard by this Commission.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 2,00,000/-i.e. limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. From the evidence of complainant it appears that complainant has made his statement just like a replica of the contents of complaint petition.    

We have gone through the written arguments on behalf of complainant.

It appears that complainant is a retired school teacher. He invested his good and hard money earned money in a various schemes of op no.1. Op no. 1 has been running various financial companies in various names and being attracted by the advertisement and also being convinced by words of the op no.1.Initially, though complainant started to get return but subsequently he learnt from various sources that op 1 is a black listed company and it is nothing but a cheat fund alike Sarada and within a few months op 1 closed its local branch office at Chinsurah and their agent and manager remained absent from their residences for a considerable period.It appears that the complainant at present failed to get any return and as a result of that the complainant is in a great economical hardship and is passing his life through poverty.

It may be noted that though ops have submitted their written version but, they did not file any affidavit in chief.So, their contents in their written version became uncorroborated and has no value.

Further it may be noted that though during arguments Ld. Advocate appearing for op no.4 has challenged the argument of Ld. Advocate of complainant, but we cannot find any force and spirit in the argument of ld. Advocate of op. no.4.Moreover, it may be noted that the contents of written statement of all ops have not at all been corroborated by their affidavit in chief.

Considering the attending the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on records we are of the view that complainant has succeeded in proving his case.

it isordered

that the complaint case being no. C.C. 47 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.4 and on exparte against op no. 1, 2 and 3 wit cost.

Op no. 1 to 4 are directed to refund the entire deposited amount of Rs. 30,000/- with its maturity value along with interest @ Rs. 8% within 45 days from the date of this order.

Let copy of this order be supplied to complainant and op no. 1 to 4 /their Ld. Advocates by hand with proper acknowledgement /send by ordinary course for information and necessary action.