↵
DATE OF FILING : 03/11/2014.
DATE OF S/R : 20/02/2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 20/01/2016.
- SHYAMALI BARMAN,
wife of Shibnath Barman,
residing at Surikhali, P.O –Panchla, P.S Uluberia,
District-Howrah,
2. PRAFULLA ADHIKARY,
son of late Panchu Adhikary,
residing at Kotalghata, Kushberia, P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah,
3. SHIBNATH BARMAN,
son of late Hrishikesh Barman,
residing at Surikhali, P.O Panchla, P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah, ………………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
- AMAZAN AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED,
now presently known as “AMAZAN CAPITAL LIMITED”
having its registered office at Infinity Infotech Park, Tower-1,
2nd Floor, Plot no.A3, Block-GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700091.
- AVIJIT MONDAL,
son of Abani Mondal,
residing at village & P.O- Bikihakola,
P.S- Panchla, District Howrah,
PIN711302………………………………………………… Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainants, by filing a joint petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay the maturity value of their investment, to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that on being persuaded by O.P. 2, complainants made investments in different schemes term deposits, fixed deposits, recurring deposits etc of o.ps. 1. The o.p. 1, issued money receipts vide Annexures in favour of the complainants.
- O.P. 1 promised to pay the maturity amounts of the complainants on the respective due dates which fell in 2012 and 2013 for different complainants. But since their maturity, O.P.1. did not pay any maturity benefit. So, complainants went to the office of the O.P., but they have returned the complainants without giving their ultimate benefit. It is further stated by the complainants that due to this non action and gross negligence on the part of the O.P., complainants have been compelled to face tremendous problem due to scarcity of money with which they were supposed to meet day to day expenditure, medical expenditure, children’s education etc. which are really at stake. So, finding no other alternative, complainants filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notices were served upon O.ps. Only O.P. 2 appeared and file written version. So the case was heard on contest against O.P. no. 2 and ex parte against O.P. no. 1.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainant and w/v filed by o.p2 and noted their contents. Complainants invested a huge amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- in total in the o.p 1’s. company. It is a fact that o.p1. has failed to pay the maturity amount even after the expiry of the maturity dates since 2012 for which complainants felt tremendous monetary problem. Because, people invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. O.p. no. 1, has miserably failed to keep their promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour of complainants. For their gross negligence in discharging duties, complainants had to suffer a lot for the crying need of money. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, complainant made those investments foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.ps.’severe negligence, complainants, are, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. Moreover, the o.p. no 1, has not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted against o.p1. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.O.p1. has miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be, perpetuated for an indefinite period. O.P. 2 simply acted as an agent of O.P. no. 1. And O.P. no. 2 did not issue any money receipt. So for any act on the part of O.P. 2, O.P. no. 1 is vicariously and absolutely liable. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainants should be allowed against o.p1. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 565 of 2014 ( HDF 565 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P. 1 and dismissed against O.P. no. 2 without cost.
That the O.P. no. 1 is directed to pay the maturity amounts to the complainants in terms of the certificates in question within one month from this order i.d., @ 8% p.a. interest shall be charged till actual payment.
The complainants do get an award of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation and Rs. 6000 litigation cost and o.p. is directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 8% p.a. till actual payment.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
(Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
