State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman (Managing Trustee), All ... vs Abdul Rashid Molla on 7 March, 2012
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/278/2011
DATE OF FILING :
20.06.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:
07.03.2012
APPELLANT
The Chairman (Managing Trustee)
All India Clench Foundation Micro Finance Institute
8A, Ekdalia Place, Ballygunge,
2nd Floor, Kolkata-700 019.
RESPONDENT
Abdul
Rashid Molla
S/o
Late Fakir Molla
Residing
at Village-Paikpari, P.S. Domkal,
Dist.
Murshidabad.
BEFORE : HONBLE
JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT
MEMBER : MR. S.COARI
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Debsoumya
Basak, Ld. Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT /
O.P.S.: Mr. S.Nayak and Mr. Alok
Mukhopadhyay,
Ld. Advocates.
: O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad, in Case No. 146/2010, allowing thereby the complaint ex parte with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and directing the OP to pay the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- within two months from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment in full.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the OP is the Chairman (Managing Trustee) of All India Clench Foundation, Micro Finance Institute. The complainant was appointed as an agent and manager-in-charge of Dhanirampur branch. As per the rules and regulations of the trust, the money was collected from the members of public against fixed deposit and MIS policy. As per terms of the trust, after six months the complainant asked the OP to arrange for loan for the policy holders. But the OP avoided and the policy holders became violent.
Under such circumstances, the petitioner had to sell out his own property and returned the money to the policy holders. The complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that it is a charitable trust and the order was passed by the Ld. District Forum ex parte although there was no service upon the Appellant. It is submitted that the envelope was returned with the remark Not claimed.
It is contended that there was no existence of Dhanirampur branch. It is submitted that no document was filed to show that the complainant was appointed agent. It is submitted that the complainant acted as a consultant and not an agent. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Micro Finance Institute is linked with LICI and he has referred to the documents filed in this Appeal. It is contended that the postal peon was not examined in the Ld. District Forum and no evidence was adduced by the complainant.
It is contended that the complainant did not lodge any information with the police and there is no document to show that the complainant sold out his own property to pay the amount to fixed deposit holders. It is contended that the Ld. District Forum without any reliable document passed an award of Rs. 6,00,000/-.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that in Para-3 of the application for condonation of delay it has been stated that due to heavy business work the members of staff of the Appellant could not attend the proceedings and the ex parte order was passed. It is also submitted that all the documents were filed before the Ld. District Forum and considering all the materials the Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the impugned order.
We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties. Although in the service return there was the remark Not claimed, but it appears from Para-3 of the application for condonation of delay that the Managing Trustee, due to some urgent other business work was out of station and the staff of the Association could not take any steps in the matter.
Under such circumstances, we find that the contention of lack of knowledge of the proceeding before the Ld. District Forum is not acceptable.
Secondly, the complainant filed series of documents in the Ld. District Forum. It appears that there is one identity card in the name of the Respondent, Rasid Molla, issued by All India Clench Foundation, i.e. the Appellant, with the seal of the said office. The meeting resolution book also bears the seal of All India Clench Foundation, Dhanirampur branch. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that all those documents including the seal of the Foundation were fake. But there is no paper to show that any case was filed before any court regarding alleged fake and forged documents. The complainant also filed the xerox copies of fixed deposit certificates issued in favour of so many persons. The statements of fixed deposits have also been filed. The complainant has also filed some receipts whereby he paid different sums of money to some persons as against their claims as per the fixed deposits. Ld. District Forum having considered all these documents was pleased to pass the order impugned. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum.
In the result, the Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
MEMBER PRESIDENT