First Appeal No. A/53/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/10/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/36/2015 of District North 24 Parganas). Case: Ashis Samaddar Vs Ashok Kumar Dutta and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. A/53/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/10/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/36/2015 of District North 24 Parganas) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rajesh Biswas and Sibaji Sankar Dhar, Advocates and For Respondents: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Shyamal Gupta, (Presiding Member) and Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | April 06, 2017 |
| Court | West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Shyamal Gupta, (Presiding Member), (Kolkata)
-
This Appeal emanates out of the Order dated 28-10-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, 24 Parganas (North) in C.C. No. 36/2015 whereby the complaint has been decreed in favour of the Complainant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP No. 1 thereof has preferred this Appeal.
-
Case of the Complainant, briefly narrated, is that, he invested a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the OPs on the assurance that the Company would pay him interest @ Rs. 6,040/- per month. On 28-03-2013, OPs gave him 1st monthly instalment of Rs. 6,040/- and convinced him to deposit more money with the company. On good faith, he deposited another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the said company. In the month of April, 2013, the OPs closed their office at Bangaon. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant went to the house of the OP No. 1, but he fled from the house. Thereafter, with a view to get back the money, he made several attempts to made contact with the OPs but in vain. Finding no other alternative, he filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
-
OP No. 1 stated in his W.V. that he is/was not the Director of the Company in question. Neither he received any money from the Complainant nor did he issue any receipt to him. He has no liability towards the Complainant and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
-
The main point for consideration is whether there is any jurisdictional error with the impugned order.
Decision with reasons
-
Although the Appellant disputed maintainability of the case on various grounds, we find that the same has been properly dealt with by the Ld. District. Therefore, we refrain from dealing the issues afresh for the purpose of brevity of discussion.
-
Given that the factum of deposit of money by the Respondent No. 1 is not in dispute, let us discuss whether the Appellant is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the Respondent No. 1.
-
It is claimed by the Appellant that he is not the Director of the company, namely, "Heaven Infra Projects Ltd.", but merely its agent. However, on going through the internet copy of search report from the portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 29-01-2013, it transpires that the Appellant was appointed as Director of the said company on 04-09-2012. There is nothing to show that the Appellant resigned from the Directorship of the said Company prior to 27-02-2013, i.e., the date when the Respondent No. 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial