Order No. 14 dt. 22/05/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on being attracted by the o.ps advertisement to invite the deposit from different persons for business establishments of the o.ps., the complainant paid total amount of Rs.14,42,500/-. The said amount was accepted by the o.ps by making false promises and assurances in the name of secured debentures/recurring deposits to be issued from the aforesaid companies that they would return the principal amount with highly attractable interest. The complainant after the expiry of the period of getting back the amount failed to refund the money for which the complainant sent lawyer’s notice demanding the said amount but the o.ps did not pay any heed for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps for refund of the money as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Amongst all the ops the o.p3 only contested the case and other 4 o.ps did not contest the same for which the case has proceeded ex-parte against them.
The o.p.3 stated inter alia that the complainant approached this Forum for recovery of his alleged dues which form part of commercial transaction. This Forum cannot be realiser of any money from any creditor. This Forum has no jurisdiction to consider any complaint which arises out of commercial transaction. The complaint as filed by the complainant does not come under the scope ambit and meaning of consumer as stipulated in section 2(1)(d)(II) of the said act. On the basis of the said fact the answering o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant paid an amount of Rs.14,42,500/- to the o.ps?
- Whether the o.ps undertook to refund the amount after the period of maturity?
- Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant on being attracted by the o.ps advertisement to invite the deposit from different persons for business establishments of the o.ps., the complainant paid total amount of Rs.14,42,500/-. The said amount was accepted by the o.ps by making false promises and assurances in the name of secured debentures/recurring deposits to be issued from the aforesaid companies that they would return the principal amount with highly attractable interest. The complainant after the expiry of the period of getting back the amount failed to refund the money for which the complainant sent lawyer’s notice demanding the said amount but the o.ps did not pay any heed for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps for refund of the money as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the complainant approached this Forum for recovery of his alleged dues which form part of commercial transaction. This Forum cannot be realiser of any money from any creditor. This Forum has no jurisdiction to consider any complaint which arises out of commercial transaction. The complaint as filed by the complainant does not come under the scope ambit and meaning of consumer as stipulated in section 2(1)(d)(II) of the said act. On the basis of the said fact the answering o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant on being attracted with the assurance of providing interest to the complainant and after the period of maturity the amount would be refunded to the complainant, he paid the amount to the o.ps. The complainant in order to substantiate his claim filed some documents which have not been denied by the o.ps including the o.p.3. The o.p. has raised objection that the amount invested by the complainant was for commercial purpose therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to obtain money from the private towards the providing of benefit of fixed deposit the o.p. ought to have obtained permission from RBI and even if the argument of the o.p3 is accepted that the debentures were issued by the o.ps in that event the o.p.3 should proof with documentary evidence that the permission was obtained from SEBI for issuing such debentures. In absence of any such document it can safely be held that the complainant was induced to pay the amount to the o.ps for providing service to him by means of payment of interest as well as to refund the amount after the maturity period. Since the o.ps flouted the conditions as laid down in the document issued by o.ps therefore we hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps as well as unfair trade practice adopted by o.ps to avoid the payment of the money to the complainant.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no.77/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,42,500/- (Rupees fourteen lakh forty-two thousand five hundred) to the complainant as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
