DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 135 OF 2016
DATE OF FILING: 01.12.2016 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17.12.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : Smt Shipra Maschatak, W/o – Sri Samir Maschatak, Residing at Renukana Bhawan, P – 23/E, Nazir Bagan, P.O. – Haltu, P.S. – Garfa, Kolkata – 700 078.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Teachers’ Welfare Credit and Holding Limited, A registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 10/99, Bijoygarh, P.S. – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092 represented by its Directors.
2. Sri Swapan Ghosh, of 107, Regent Estate, P.S. – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 029.
3. Sri Madhusudan Chakraborty, of 11 Pallisree, P.S. – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092.
4. Sri Anjan Kumar Bhattacharya, of 10/65 ,Bijoygarh, P.S. – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092.
5. Sri Tridib Kumar Das, 23/R of Bade Raipur Road, P.S. – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032.
6. Smt Sipra Chakraborty, of 11 Pallisree, P.S. – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092.
7. Smt Kalpana Bose, of Lakshinarayan Colony, Garia, P.S. – Patuli, Kolkata – 700 084.
8. Managing director, Teachers’ Welfare Association and Holding Pvt. Ltd. having its Branch Office at Garia, Kalitala, P.S. – Sonarpur, C/o – Ranjit Naiya, Garia Station Road, Kalitala, Kolkata – 700 084.
__________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
O.P. no. 1 is a non-Banking company and O.P. nos. 2 to 8 are directors thereof.
The company is engaged with the collection of money from the public in its various financial schemes and also with lending of money with interest to others. Complainant deposited Rs. 14,25,000/- on different dates with O.P. no. 1 company in its Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) for a fixed term in phased manner. Thereafter, she fell in dire financial straits and demanded refund of the said money. Even legal notice was given to the O.Ps. by the complainant. But, all these failed to evoke any response on the part of the O.Ps. Money was not returned to the complainant and therefore the complainant has come up before this forum with the filing of the instant case praying for refund of the money invested with O.P. no. 1 and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
Notice of the case was served upon the O.Ps. through paper publication a copy of which is kept in record. O.P. nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8 did not turn up and therefore the case proceeds ex-parte against them. O.P. nos. 4 and 6 have filed separate W/Vs wherein it is contended inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law and that there is no cause of action arising in favour of the complainant for bringing the instant case. So, the case should be dismissed. The positive case as made out in W/V filed by them is that O.P. no. 1 is Public Limited Company and O.P. no. 2 was the principal and the managing director of the said company and other directors including themselves were helping partners; they did never attend the office of the company. O.P. no. 2 also did not allow the other directors to look after the affairs of the company. They have no deficiency in service whatsoever and therefore the case should be dismissed in limini against them.
According to O.P. no. 5, he joined as director in July, 2005 and his family members has also fallen a pray to the trap of O.P. no. 2 by having invested a fabulous sum of money in his company like the complainant. Complainant has already made complaint before Economic Offence wing of Govt. of West Bengal for getting back invested money. So, she cannot pursue before 2 forums at a time for redressal of grievance.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and O.P. no. 5. BNA is filed by O.P. no. 5. DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1, 2 and 3:
In the instant case, the complainant has prayed for refund of the money invested by her in MIS of O.P. no. 1. Investment of money with O.P. no. 1 and the assurance of O.P. no. 1 to return the sum after a fixed period constitute a contract between the parties and the parties will always be guided by the terms and conditions of the contract. The complainant has filed the copy of 5 money receipts with the complaint. These money receipts are issued by O.P. no. 1 and signed by Swapan Ghosh, O.P. no. 2, one of the directors of the company. On perusal of the money receipts, it is found that the investments made by the complainant were to get maturity on different dates i.e. on 09.07.2018, 20.07.2018, 27.07.2018. Negligence on the part of O.P. no. 1 company to pay the maturity value of the policy of the complainant is gross deficiency in service on the part of the said company and its director and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the relief against them.
O.P. no. 5 has contended that he renounced the post of directorship of the company much before the filing of the instant case and therefore he is not liable for the grievance of the complainant. No document whatsoever has been produced before the forum by O.P. no. 5 to prove that he renounced the directorship of him much ahead of the deposit made by the complainant in the instant case. Renunciation of the directorship requires notification in public newspaper; renunciation must be in knowledge of the general public and unless such notification is made, renunciation has no legal effect. No such notification whatsoever is filed by O.P. no. 5 and therefore we feel compelled to say that there is no merit at all in the submission of O.P. no. 5.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against O.P. no. 4, 5 and 6 and ex-parte against all other O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The O.P. company and its directors will remain jointly and severally liable to the complainants. The O.P.s are directed to pay Rs. 14,25,000/- (5 policies) to the complainant within a month of this order failing which they will have to pay compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. upon the maturity value of individual policy from the respective date of maturity of each policy till full realization thereof.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree President
Member Member
Directed and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against O.P. no. 4, 5 and 6 and ex-parte against all other O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The O.P. company and its directors will remain jointly and severally liable to the complainants. The O.P.s are directed to pay Rs. 14,25,000/- (5 policies) to the complainant within a month of this order failing which they will have to pay compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. upon the maturity value of individual policy from the respective date of maturity of each policy till full realization thereof.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
