View 33540 Cases Against Society
Mr. Prathamesh Pandurang Naik filed a consumer case on 28 Mar 2023 against 1. Mashel Mahila Co-operative Credit Society Ltd Repr. Through its The General Manager & others in the North Goa Consumer Court. The case no is CC/11/2023 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Apr 2023.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NORTH GOA AT PORVORIM.
Consumer Complaint No.:- 11of 2023
Date of Complaint: 17/02/2023
Date of Order: 28 /03/2023
QUORUM. BELA N. NAIK, PRESIDENT
AUROLIANO DE OLIVEIRA, MEMBER
REJITHA RAJAN, MEMBER
Mr. Prathamesh Pandurang Naik
Son of late Pandurang Naik
Aged 28 years, Service,
residing at H.No.324/3, Zuwarwada,
Tivrem, Marcela-Goa 403 107. .……...Complainant
V/s
Society Ltd.,
Representated through its,
The General Manager,
Deulwada, Marcela-Goa 403 107......... Opposite Party No.1
Mashel Mahila Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd.,
Marcela-Goa 403 107. ........ Opposite Party No.2
Mashel Mahila Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd.,
Marcela-Goa 403 107. ........ Opposite Party No.3
ORDER
Heard Ld. Advocate Shri. V. Bhandare for the Complainant and perused the records, pleadings and the documents relied upon by the complainant.
Admittedly, The Opposite Party is a “Credit Resource Society” registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and having its office at Deulwada, Marcela-Goa. The Opposite Party is accepting and landing money to its customers and is engaged in banking/financial business. It is stated by the Complainant that he invested his hard earned money with the Opposite Party by investing in the fixed deposits as he falls prey to the lucrative offers of the Opposite Party in gating good returns and as such the complainant opened Recurring Deposit with the Opposite Party in the year 2019.
It is pertinent to note that on the own admission of the complainant it’s become clear that the complainant is an Investor who has invested his money with the Opposite Parties in order to gain the lucrative return from the Opposite Parties. The law is well settled that the Investor is not a Consumer. This principle is laid down by our Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUNDS VERSUS KARTIK DAS (1994) 4 SCC 244 “That a prospective Investor is not a Consumer under Consumer Act.” The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has followed said rulings in the matter of SURENDRA KAPUR VERSUS M/S PUJA CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ORS. 2022(12) TMI 363 “That the Investor is not the Consumer” And in the matter of BAIDYANATH MONDAL VERSUS KANAHAYA LAL RATHI 2022 SCC online NCDRC 62 decided on 29/04/2022, that the Investor is not a Consumer. These rulings are rightly applicable to this case of the Complainant.
Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Commission that the such other matters are a subjudice before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and the investigation is at large before the Economic Offences cell (PS).
Hence, this being position and the admitted facts of the present case it is cleared that the complainant is not a consumer and is an investor and therefore as the complainant is not a consumer this court has no jurisdiction to decide the present matter as the complainant has chosen wrong forum and as such this complaint cannot be admitted.
Therefore, we pass the following order:
ORDER
The Complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open court.
Proceeding Closed.
(Bela N. Naik)
President
(Auroliano de Oliveira)
Member
(Rejitha Rajan)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.