Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

                    (3)     Anil Kumar Singh

                              Member

Date of Order : 24.10.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- along with 18% interest from 03.01.2012 till full and final payment.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that on the request of opposite party no. 3. On 2^nd May 2012 complainant in good faith has also lent Rs. 3,00,000/- to opposite party no. 3 and the opposite party no. 3 acknowledge the aforesaid fact in writing on non – judicial stamp on which it is written that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was lent to him for treatment of his wife as will appear from annexure – 1. Again opposite party no. 3 requested the complainant to advance a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for his personal purpose to which the complainant refused but had paid the aforesaid amount when the opposite party no. 3 agreed to mortgage his land the details of which has been mentioned in annexure – 2 and 3 thereafter the complainant lent the aforesaid amount to opposite party no. 3 as will appear from annexure – 2. Thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 03.01.2012 issued on behalf of opposite party no. 1 containing annexure – 3 in which it is stated that the complainant has become a member of the family of BMA Commodities Pvt. Ltd. which advise on the investment matter.

The complainant has asserted that without information, opposite party no. 3 had deposited the aforesaid amount for credit of her trading account but no any contract note or ledger statement was served to the complainant within 24 hrs. from the close of trading hr.

Thereafter the complainant approached the office of opposite party no. 1 and made detailed enquiry. After enquiry, she came to know that unauthorized trade had been taken in the complainant account and thereafter she has filed an application before manager BMA Commodities Pvt. Ltd. with request to take appropriate steps on his own level for refunding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant but her grievance was not redressed.

Thereafter the complainant again approached opposite party no. 3 for refunding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- given to him by her but he refused.

It has been further submitted by the complainant that she does not understand English and as such she could not be explained the terms and condition before finalization of proposal.

It appears from the record that initially a notice was issued in the admission matter but later on 21.09.2015 this case was admitted and notice was sent to the opposite parties and when the notice dated 12.11.2015 sent to opposite parties did not return unserved then valid Tamila was declared vide order dated 09.02.2016 when despite allowing sufficient opportunity, opposite parties neither appeared nor filed written statement then they were debarred from filing written statement and the case was heard ex – parte.

From careful perusal of the fact of this case it is crystal clear that complainant has given Rs. 13,00,000/- for treatment of wife of opposite party no. 3 but opposite party no. 3 without consent of the complainant has invested the amount on her name with opposite party no. 1.

In our opinion such facts are not covered under the provision of Consumer Protection Act because it appears that opposite party no. 3 has committed gross criminal act by investing the amount of the complainant with opposite party no. 1 without consent of the complainant.

In our opinion the facts of this case is outside scope of Consumer protection Act, 1986.

However, the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate action against opposite parties in competent court for redressal of her grievance because we are not deciding this complaint on merit.

With the aforesaid observation this complaint stands dismissed for not being maintainable.

                                     Member (F)                 Member                                 President