BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Puravatha Bhavan, 1st Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Opp. M.D. College, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.
O.No.
(1) Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2016/33
Date of filing : 06/02/2016
Date of Order: 28/09/2017
Shri. Vasant Pandurang Mhatre,
Residing at : Block No. B-7, Nav-Samaj Society,
Nehru Road, Vile Parle,
Mumbai – 400 057. ….. Complainant.
***************************************************************
(2) Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2016/34
Date of filing : 06/02/2016
Date of Order: 28/09/2017
Ms. Shalima Vasant Mhatre,
Residing at : Block No. B-7, Nav-Samaj Society,
Nehru Road, Vile Parle,
Mumbai – 400 057. ….. Complainant.
***************************************************************
(3) Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2016/35
Date of filing : 06/02/2016
Date of Order: 28/09/2017
Mrs. Snehalata Vasant Mhatre,
Residing at : Block No. B-7, Nav-Samaj Society,
Nehru Road, Vile Parle,
Mumbai – 400 057. ….. Complainant.
***************************************************************
(4) Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2016/36
Date of filing : 06/02/2016
Date of Order: 28/09/2017
Shri. Vasant Pandurang Mhatre,
Residing at : Block No. B-7, Nav-Samaj Society,
Nehru Road, Vile Parle,
Mumbai – 400 057. ….. Complainant.
***************************************************************
V/s.
Executive Director,
Dairyland Plantations (I) Ltd.,
Office at : 261-63, Princess Street,
Mumbai – 400 002. ….. Opposite Party
Coram:
Shri. G.K. Rathod : Hon’ble President
Shri. S.R. Sanap : Hon’ble Member
Appearance: Complainant – In person
For Opponent - Adv. Smt. S.S. Dwivedi
// COMMON JUDGMENT //
PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE PRESIDENT
The facts and pleadings of all (04) cases are same and similar, the contents in the written version filed by the Opponent is also one and the same in all (04) cases, hence all these (04) cases are decided by this Common Judgment & Order.
All the Complainants are the family members. The brief facts of all the (04) cases can be summarized as under :-
(2) The Complainant Mr. Vasant Pandurang Mhatre, aged about 85 years occupation retired residing at Vileparle, Mumbai alongwith his other family members submitted that the Opponent Party is a Company having its property at Mumbai under the provisions of Companies Act and the Opponent is responsible for payment to the Investors / Consumers of the Company. The Opponent has circulated Notification alongwith terms and conditions, the photocopies of the same are attached at Exh. A and as per the said Scheme, the Opposite Party invited to the public for investment of minimum for Rs. 5,000/- for five trees in every unit for fostering and nurturing of the saplings and the Complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- for one unit on 10/8/1992 and the Opponent has issued a Green Gold Bonds to the Complainant, it is at Exh.B and the receipt of the Bond is at Exh. C. As per the terms and conditions, and on the basis of oral meetings between the Complainant and the Opponent Party, the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- for one unit is invested with the Opponent and the Complainant has not withdrawn or transferred the said Bond to anyone.
It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the Bonds, fulfilled by the Complainant, the Opponent has not made payment and therefore, the Complainant has forwarded the complaint to the Chairman of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat on 24/04/2015, copy is at Exh. L. The Mumbai Grahak Panchayat sent a letter to the Opponent on 29/4/2015, 8/7/2015 and 31/08/2015 to the Opposite Party and requested to clear the legal dues of the Complainant, but the Opponent did not reply to any of the above three letters and there was no positive action by the Opposite Party. Cause of action against the Opposite Party has arisen in the month of April 2015 and same is in existence till the date as there is a total negligence and default on the part of the Opposite Party in the payment of value of maturity of the said Bond of amount deposited by the Complainant in the year 1992. It is further submitted that as the Opposite Party is having a registered office at 261-63 Princess Street, Mumbai and therefore, this Court has a jurisdiction to take a cognizance against the Opponent. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party is in default of providing proper services and he has committed defective services and created undue loss to the Complainant. It is further submitted that the maturity period of Green Bond was 20 years and the Bond was purchased in the year 1992 and is matured in the year 2012 and according to the conditions of the Bond, the Opposite Party ought to have been contacted to the Complainant three months prior to the maturity of the duration of the Green Bond Scheme. But from 2012 to 2015, there was not any communication from the Opposite Party. On 29/1/2015, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Party and the Complainant had sent a reply to the Opponent on 03/03/2015 the letters are at Exh. P & K respectively, and therefore, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- and also interest @18% p.a. on the said amount of the maturity of Rs.2,50,000/- till the full and final realization of value to the Complainant and also claimed Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation for mental and physical agony created by the Opposite Party and other demands made in the prayer clause of the complaint (“a” to “d”).
To support contentions, the Complainant has filed list of documents, alongwith affidavit evidence as also orally argued.
(3) The Opposite Party has rebutted the claim of the Complainant. They denied the complaints of the Complainants in toto. Miss. Seema Gaikwad is Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party appeared and filed the written statement. It is submitted that the Opponent Company was incorporated on 29/5/1992 under the provisions of the Companies Act and first Directors of the Company were Mr. Dinshaw Nariman, Mr. Meherwan Nariman, Mr. Naval Nariman, Mr. Rusi Nariman, Ms. Jeroo Nariman, Mr. Urvaksh Naval, Hoyvoy. Mr. Dinshaw Nariman was expired on 24/7/2003 and Mr. Meherwan Nariman expired in the year 1993, Mr. Naval Nariman expired in the year 1998 and Mr. Rusi Nariman expired on September 17, 2011. It is further contended that the Opponent Company in order to carry out the said plantation Scheme toook 28 acres of land on leave and license basis vide an agreement dtd. 7/9/1992 at Village Varwada Tahsil Talasari, District Thane and as per its main objective, undertook cultivation of teak plantations on the said 28 Acres of property at Varwada. The Opponent Company floated a Scheme in the year 1992. Under the Scheme, an Investor could purchase a Bond from the Respondent Company, and on the expiry of the Bond period of 20 years, the Investor would be entitled to duly cut five teak trees or realized the sale proceeds of five trees from the Respondent Company, on the terms and conditions set out in the application form as duly filled by such Investor and as per the terms of the Bond. The said period of 20 years in respect of Bond issued in the year 1992 have expired, and hence, such Bonds have matured, thus entitling the investors to duly cut five teak trees or realized sale proceeds of five trees, from the Opponent Company as per the terms of the Bond. It is further submitted that the total Number of Investors are 1660, who invested in the Scheme and the total number of Bonds issued by the Company were 1938 and the total Number of trees standing at the said site are 12,130. This includes a buffer of 20% which were planted as per the terms of the Bond and the Department of Forests, Dahanu has counted the said trees and numbered the same. The report is at Exh.A and therefore, there is no any deficiency in service in complying with the obligations as per the terms of the Bond. It is further contended that the trees have been planted and taken care of by the Opponent Company by appointing forest and agricultural experts to insure the growth of the said teak trees. The Opposite Party crave leave to refer and rely upon any such documents evidencing appointment of agricultural experts as and when necessary. It is further contended that as per the letter dtd. 29/1/2015 of the Opponent Company sought the Bond Holders preference as regards return on investment i.e. five teak trees or realized sale proceeds of the said five teak trees, also further informed the Investors to provide their Bank Account details in case they wanted the realized sale proceeds of the five teak tress, document at Exh. B. The Opponent has admitted that the Complainant had invested in the said Scheme as per the terms of the Bond and not the Notification as claimed by the Complainant. The Company is more than willing to repay all the Investors including the present Complainant as per the terms of the Bond and accordingly, the Opponent Company written a letter to all the Investors seeking their preference as regards return on Investment i.e. five teak trees or realized sale proceeds of the said five teak trees as per the terms of the Bond. The Opponent Company acknowledges that the Complainant has paid Rs. 5,000/- and in lieu thereof was given one unit of the Green Bond on 10/8/1992.
(4) It is further submitted that the Complainant has visited the office of the Respondent Company enquiring about their claim under this Scheme, were the Opponent has informed that the Company had applied to the Department of Forest to count the trees and get the same Numbered and were in the process of making applications to the Department of Forests to provide permission for cutting the said trees. It is further submitted that the Complainant has wrongly or prematurely approached to the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat as the Respondent Company themselves written a letter to the investors including the Complainant seeking their preference as regards return on investment and the Opponent acknowledged the receipt of registered letters by the Complainant and have informed them vide letter dtd. 29/1/2015. It is further submitted that the Complainant has convenienty left out the details as regards the Opponent’s honest intention of asking the investors such as the present Complainant to visit the plantation site and understand the situation. Therefore, the complaint is not tenable and liable for dismissed with costs.
(5) From the above facts following points arouse for our determination :
Sr.No. | Points | Answers |
1. | Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent? ... | Yes. |
2. | Whether there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent? … | Yes. |
3 | What order? ... | As per final order. |
(6) From the contents of the complaint, the written version affidavit evidence and other documents produced by the parties, it is admitted fact that the Complainant has purchased the Bond from the Opponent under the Green Gold Scheme on 10/8/1992 and therefore he/she is a “consumer” of the Opponent. It is also admitted fact that this Bond is matured after 20 years. It means that the Bond is matured prior to 10/8/2012. I have gone through the contents of the policy which is produced by the Complainant. It is clearly mentioned that after maturity of the policy, minimum return is of Rs. 2,50,000/- on investing of Rs. 5,000/-. It is whisper from the written version that the Respondent Company had applied to the Department of Forests to count the trees and get the same numbered and were in the process for making the application to the Department of Forests to provide the permission for cutting the said trees. There is no sufficient effort taken on the part of the Opponent. It is pertinent to note that on several occasions, the Opponent remained absent and only Miss. Seema Gaikwad authorized representative appeared and filed written version affidavit evidence and thereafter she remained absent. The Bond is matured of the Complainant and the maturity amount was not paid to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Bond, and therefore, we found substance that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent and the relief claimed by the Complainant is justified. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order
(7) Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
//O R D E R//
- The complaints (04) are partly allowed.
- The Opponent shall pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity of the fund till its realization to each (04) Complainant.
- The Opponent also shall pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony to each (4) Complainant.
- The Opponent to comply the aforesaid order within a period of (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
sd/-xxx sd/-xxx
(Shri. S.R. Sanap) (Shri.G.K. Rathod)
Hon’ble Member Hon’ble President
Note:- As the pleadings, affidavit, documents of the parties are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.
vns
