SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The synopsis of the complaint case is that  the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as 300 Non convertible Redeemable Debentures of Rs. 100/- each through the OP no. 1 to the OP no. 2 on 28.02.2007 being Registered Folio No. 035286. The maturity value was Rs. 3,00,000/- and the date of maturity was 25.01.2017.  The OP no. 2 gave a chqeue being No. 004378 for Rs. 3,00,000/- on 03.07.2016 through the OP no 1 for the said maturity amount but the said chqeue bounced on 04.07.2016.  The complainant thereafter requested the OP no. 1 for payment of the amount but he did not pay any heed.  The complainant also invested a sum of Rs. 1000/- as 10 Non Convertible Redeemable Debentures of Rs 100/- each through the OP no. 1 to the OP no. 2 being registered Folio No. 298911. Maturity amount thereof was Rs. 10,000/- as on 28.02.17 i,e, the date of maturity. The complainant demanded the amount of maturity Rs. 10,000/-  from the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1 on 28.02.2017 . The OP no. 2 issued a chqeue in favour of the complainant for that amount but that has also been bounced. As such the complainant has been suffering from mental agony and has filed this case with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as the maturity amount  with 10% interest  from 28.02.2017 and other reliefs.

            Summons were issued upon both the OPs, the OP no. 1 appeared and contested the case by filing written version but the OP no. 2 did not turn up. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP no. 2.

            The defense of the OP no. 1 as per written version is denial of the material facts of the complaint.   This OP contends that he is not a necessary party of this case and for the sake of avoiding the question  of jurisdiction, he has been made party in the case.  He has claimed that only with an ulterior motive to extort money by way of exorbitant compensation this case has been filed.   The OP no. 1 has no involvement with the policy of the complainant with the OP no. 2.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the OP no 1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.   

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS.

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint, the written version of the OP, the affidavit in- chief of the complainant, questionnaires by the OP and reply of the complainant and vice versa. Perused the documents filed by the complainant. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides. We have considered all the above materials very carefully.

It appears that the main contention of the OP no, 1 is that the complainant has filed this case and made him party  with an ulterior motive to extort money and exorbitant compensation.  The OP no. 1 has stated that he has no involvement with the investment of the complainant with the OP no. 2 Company. So neither he has any negligence nor unfair trade practice as claimed by the complainant. He denied that he ever took any agency from the OP no. 2  Siya Ram Agro Industry Ltd nor the complainant took any policy from him or invested money through him. He also denied  that the complainant invested Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- through him  to the OP no. 2 on 28.02.2007 being registered Folio No. 035286.  He also denied that the OP no. 2 gave him chqeue for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Ramakrishna Co-operative Bank Ltd  on 03.07.2016. He also denied that the complainant invested Rs 1000/-  on 28.02.2017 as 10 Non Convertible Redeemable Debentures of Rs 100/- each through the OP no. 1 to the OP no. 2 being registered Folio No. 298911. ; he also denied that the complainant demanded the maturity value o fRs. 10,000/-from the OP no. 2 through him on 28.02.2017.  But the complainant has repeatedly stated that he paid Rs. 300000/- and 1000/- to the OP no. 2 through the OP no 1 as well as being influenced by him.

 Perused two letter of Allotment produced by the complainant issued by the OP no. 2 in support of his case.  We find well corroboration of the statements of the complainant from the certificates. Those certificates well establish the investment by the complainant. The maturity value has been shown as Rs. 300000/- and 10,000/- respectively as has been asserted by the complainant.

The complainant has also filed copy of two chqeue, issued by the Op no. 2 showing a sum of Rs.300000/-  and Rs. 10000/- drawn in favour of the complainant which have bounced. It also strengthens the case of the complainant regarding his investment with the OP no. 2 Company.

 Now the question whether the OP no.1 is an agent as has been claimed by the complainant and he is  liable for any deficiency on the part of the OP no. 2 Company.

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant and OP no.1 elaborately placed argument before this Forum.

Ld advocate for the complainant relied on a decision reported in 2017 (2) CPR 522(NC) wherein it has been held that “It is the duty of the broker to help the complainant to get her money back when time of maturity comes.“

We have carefully perused the decision of reference. In that case broker admitted  that they were acting as broker for OP and have got the proposal form filled as well as accepted money from the complainant and it was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission  that broker should help the complainant to get her money back when time of maturity comes and has been pleased to dismiss the Revisional petition of the broker with cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

Referring this decision the ld Advocate for the complainant  argued that the complainant is entitled to get the relief  as here from two money receipts  dated 25.01.2017 and 28.02.2007 ,granted by the OP no. 2 acknowledging receipt of amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and 1000/- vide receipt No. TL/13/06/003544 dated 25.01.2017 and No. TL/13/06/00 7594 respectively, name of the OP no 1  Mr. Dulal Mondal has been mentioned as Agent with  his specific Code No.

Though the OP no.1 did not admit his involvement with the OP no. 2 Co. but he could not explain  by cogent evidence  as to why the OP no.1 has been made party by the complainant and his name has been inserted  in the money receipts issued by the OP no. 1 Company.

At the time of argument the ld advocate for the complainant submitted that the agent should have helped the complainant/investor to return his money but here the OP no. 1 has not acted his role.,

We have examined the entire materials and have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  It may be stated that the OP no. 2  with whom the money had been supposed to have been  invested by the complainant did not appear before this Forum  to contest the case.  The case against the OP no. 2 proceeded ex parte. The complainant obtained the receipts  from the OP No. 2  in the name of the OP no. 1 but it appears in the instant case that the OP no. 1 did not help the complainant to get return of the maturity amount from the OP no. 2  nor the complainant get return of the money. 

Based  on the discussion above, we are of the view that the OP no. 2 and OP no 1 both jointly and severally are liable  for the return of the  maturity amount to the complainant with interest along with further amount of Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost and compensation.

Both the points are answered accordingly.   

          Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 536 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest  against the Op No. 1 Sri Dulal Maity and ex parte against the OP No. 2.

The OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- only as maturity amount of his investment and further amount of Rs. 5000/-towards compensation and litigation cost within one month from the date of this order in default the OPs will be liable to pay 9% interest per annum on the awarded amount till its full satisfaction.In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution as per provision of the C P Act, 1986.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.