BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 23of 2013
Sri Sajal Sarkar, ……………………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Vishal Devcon Services Ltd.,
Regd. Office at House No.6, Yougesh Das Path,
Hatigaon, Guwahati-781038 O.P No.1
2. Abdul Basith, S/o Lt. Suraj Ali, Resident of Midol
P.O- Kanishail, P.S. & Dist. Karimganj, Assam O.P No.2
3. Bibuti Bushan Bhattacharjee, S/o Lt. Bijoy Krishna Bhattacharjee,
Vill & P.O-Lalong P.S-Lakhipur, Dist. Cachar, Assam
Pin-788012 O.P No.3
4. Rupak Das, S/o Debendu Das,
Vill-Rongpur, Karatigaram, P.O & P.S-Rongpur, Dist. Cachar, Assam
Pin-788009 O.P No.4
5. Mohi Uddin Md. Numan, S/o Md. Lutfur Rahman
Vill & P.O- Sadarashi, P.S & Dist. Karimganj, Assam
Pin-788709 O.P No.5
6. Md. Zakir Hussain Tapadar, S/o Lt. Md. Mugibur Rahman Tapadar
Vill & P.O- Mulla Ganj Bazar, P.S-Patharkandi
Dist.Karimganj, Assam O.P No.6
7. Rajib Das, S/o Hanan Das, R/o Laxmi Charan Road
P.O & P.S-Karimganj, Pin-78800
Dist. Karimganj, Assam O.P No.7
8. Haripada Debnath, S/o Amalya Debnath, Radhamadhab Roa
House No.30, P.O & P.S- Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam O.P No.8
9. Basish Tanti, S/o Gopal Chanda Tanti,
Vill & P.O- Lalong. P.S- Lakhipur, Pin-788012
Dist. Cachar, Assam O.P No.9
10. Hussain Ahmed, S/o Lt. Hazi Abdur Rahim
Vill- Midol, P.O- Kanishail, P.S & Dist. Karimganj, Assam
Pin-788711 O.P No.10
11. Nazmul Islam, S/o Lt. Sakawat Hussain,
Vill-Farampasha, P.O-Nilam Bazar P.S & Dist. Karimganj, Assam
Pin-788722 O.P No.11
12. Mortuja Hussain, S/o Lt. Monagir Ali,
Vill Niz Hapatia, P.O-Kanai Bazar, Dist. Karimganj, Assam
Pin-788724. O.P No.12
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Rajesh Dhar , Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Jagodish Barbhuiya, Advocate for the O.P. No. 4.
Abdur Rouf Barbhuiya, Advocate of the O.P Nos. 8, 10 & 11.
None for O.P. No.1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,9 &12.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 14-08-2014, 15-09-2014, 26-11-2014
Date of written argument……………… 08-09-2015, 05-12-2015, 28-04-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 27-07-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Dednath,
- This case has been brought by one Sajal Sarkar on the plea of representative capacity for all the people in the Barak Valley who have deposited their money with the Vishal Devcon Service Ltd. (O.P No.1) under different schemes for good Return, at the date of maturity. The money collected from subscribers including complainant by agent through its Branch Office, Silchar situated at Hospital Road. But the said Branch Office has been windup without returning maturity amount. Hence, it caused disservice, mental agony, pain sufferance and financial loss to the complainant and other subscribers. Hence, this complaint lodged against the O.P-Company and its Board of Directors for award of return of deposited amount of Rs.17,10,039 and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
- The O.P Nos. 4, 8, 10, 11 & 12 submitted W/S and contesting the proceeding. Other O.Ps including O.P No.1 Vishal Devcon Services Ltd. did not contest the case. So, the case is proceeding exparte against them.
- The complainant deposed as P.W and exhibited some documents including share subscription for returned amount and share subscription receipts of some subscribers to establish the complaint that the O.P-Company collected share subscription. The O.P Nos. 4, 8, 10 and 11 also deposed as D.W-1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The O.P No.4 deposed to establish the plea that as per resolution dated 06-04-2010, he is not responsible and liable for payment of any debts or compensation. The O.P No.8 deposed to establish the plea that he resigned from the post of Board of the Director on 07-02-2011, the O.P No.10 deposed to establish the plea that he resigned from the post of the Board of Director on 21-08-2009 and the O.P No.11 deposed to establish plea that he resigned from the post of the Board of Director on 14-09-2011. They have also exhibited documents to establish the plea.
- Anyhow, the complainant submitted written argument on completion of the deposition. Similarly, the O.P Nos. 4, 8, 10 and 12 submitted written argument. We have gone through the evidence on record, complaint W/S and exhibited documents including written argument.
- In this case, it is admitted fact that the O.P No.1 is a company registered under Company’s Act. So, it has its legal entity. So, impleading the Board of Directors are not necessary to satisfy the award. Anyhow, the complainant impleaded the Board of Director and some of the Directors by adducing evidence tried to establish the plea that they are no more Director of the O.P No.1. Company and as such they are not liable to satisfy any award of this District Forum. They tried to establish their plea above by supporting of documentary evidence. Nevertheless, if they are not liable to satisfy the award but O.P No.1 being a legal person has liable to satisfy the award if any. But in this case from the evidence on record, it is not clearly establish the material fact as how much money deposited by the complainant toward to O.P No.1 Company under a specified scheme and when the O.P No.1 Company repudiated his claim of return the maturity amount. It is also not clear from the evidence on record as when the claim of other subscribers repudiated by the O.P-Company, except the complainant, none other appear before this District Forum to depose on oath to support the complainant regarding repudiation of the claim of maturity amount. The fact regarding dissatisfaction is remaining cloudy before this District Forum due to insufficient evidence on record.
- Above all the provision of Section 12(1)(C) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 permitted a consumer or more consumer to bring complaint before the District Forum on behalf of all the consumers if interest is same and in that case permission must be accorded from the District Forum. But in the instant case, no such permission accorded. Nevertheless, interest of each and every consumer are not same because each subscribers has claim of different amount from common O.P in view of Ext.2 to Ext. J series.
- In view of above short coming, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to establish the allegations and as such this District Forum is reluctant to grant any award. Thus, this case is dismissed on contest without cost.
- Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 27th day of July, 2017.
