State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Hemanta Kumar Ghosh vs Mr. Abhijit Dey & Another on 31 March, 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/517/2009 DATE OF FILING : 31.12.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 31.03.2010 APPELLANTS Mr. Hemanta Kumar Ghosh S/o. Sri Shasanka Sekhar Ghosh Residing at Village-School-para P.O Kaliyagunj P.S. Kaliyagunj Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. RESPONDENTS 1. Mr. Abhijit Dey S/o. Late Basanta Kumar Dey Vill. Sudarshanpur P.O. & P.S. Raigunj Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. 2. Mr. Bapi Saha S/o. Late Dulal Saha Vill. Samshan Colony P.O. & P.S. Raigunj Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. S.MAJUMDER FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mrs. K.Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 27.8.09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Uttar Dinajpur, at Raigunj in Consumer Case No. 04/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest against the Ops without cost.
The complainant/Appellants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- on different occasions during the year 2001 with the Golden Forest India Ltd. (GFIL) having its office at Raigunj, District-Uttar Dinajpur. The Ops were the employees of GFIL at the relevant period. The Ops received the amount by granting receipts on behalf of GFIL.
Subsequently the complainant came to know that the business of GFIL was closed and the directors of the said firm were arrested. This prompted the complainant to send a lawyers notice to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the said GFIL constituted by the order of the Honble Supreme Court. The Chairman informed the complainant that as per guidelines sent by Honble Supreme Court, the complainant was not entitled to any relief and hence, the petition of complaint.
The Ops contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the complaint contending inter alia that much after the expiry of the limitation period the complainant having instituted the petition of complaint the same was not entertainable and as such, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the receipts upon which the complainant has banked in respect of his petition of complaint were not at all authenticated by GFIL and that the petition of complaint having been filed much after the expiry of statutory period of limitation the case was not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the petition of complaint.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant that in this case the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the case of the complainant properly and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is liable to be set aside. While elaborating his submissions on this point the Ld. Advocate has submitted before us that from the materials on record it would be evident that the complainant produced all the relevant and connected papers in support of his claim and the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate those documents for reasons best known to the Ld. District Forum. According to the Ld. Advocate, simply because the company does not exist the just claim of the complainant should not be defeated as it has been observed by the Ld. District Forum. There is no denial about the fact of complainants depositing his good money and the complainant/Appellant is very much entitled to receive the maturity value of the deposited amount. The Ld. District Forum having not done so the impugned judgement suffers from gross irregularity and the same is not supportable by the law of the land and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record including pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has tried to put up a case to the effect that he having invested good money in DFIL and having obtained receipts thereof he is entitled to receive the maturity value and in absence of any denial of the simple fact, question of debarring the complainant does not arise at all. From the materials on record we find that there is much substance in the finding of the Ld. District Forum so far as it relates to furnishing authenticated receipts of deposit made at the instance of the complainant. Besides that, we also take note of the fact that the complainant had instituted the case much after the expiry of the statutory period. If that be the position we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which is accordingly affirmed and the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
The impugned judgement stands affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER