BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 29^TH DAY OF MAY 2023

ORDER

SMT.K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to refund of Rs.70,000/- paid and Rs.1,20,000/- for the mental agony caused by the deficiency of service on the part of OP.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-

Complainant have gone through the brochures circulated by FM & PD, SS Group Office, Choukdi, Tehkhirkiya/, Harda, Madhya Pradesh – 461441 for the investment of money which will grow at 200% to 500%. By impressing the brochure and the return within 3 months of investment, complainant has paid Rs.70,000/- to OP on 07.04.2022 bearing registered No.KR-02-0021510.  OP stated in his brochure that the amount of Rs.70,000/- will be appreciated by 500% within 90 days of investment.  Complainant stated in his complaint that he was expecting the Return of Investment on 07.07.2022 (that is 3 months of tenure).  After the expiry of 3 months, complainant keep on asking OP for Return of Investment which OP has assured in his brochure. Complainant sent several whatsapp requests to OP, but he has not responded to it.  Complainant issued legal notice dated 05.11.2022 to OP calling upon him to repay the Return of Investment at 200% to 500% for Rs.70,000/-.  The legal notice duly served on OP but OP neither responded to the legal notice nor complied the claim of the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

3. After issuance of notice OP called out, OP was absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP placed Ex-parte.

4. The case is set down to adduce evidence of complaint, accordingly complainant has filed his affidavit evidence, reiterated as stated in his complaint.  In support of his oral evidence, complainant placed documents which are marked as Ex-P1 to Ex-P6.  Heard complainant’s arguments. We perused the documents placed on record.

5. Our findings on the pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled to get reliefs as  prayed in the complaint?

 iii) What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1:- In the affirmative

ii) Point No.2:- In the partly affirmative

iii) Point No.3:- As per the final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- Upon perusal of documents produced by complainant, OP is registered enterprise with ministry of micro, small & medium enterprises in the name of FM&PD, having its registered office in Nelemanagala, Bangalore(R) as per Ex.P.2. OP has circulated brochure with the different amounts, for a different benefits. As complainant stated in his complaint, that after perusing the brochure complainant paid Rs.70,000/- through UPI transaction to the mobile number of OP mentioned in Ex.P.2 on different dates which are produced in Ex-P.4(In 4 pages), he produced screenshots of 4 payments on different dates. Therefore complainant proved that he has paid the amount to OP of Rs.50,000/- as an investment. Here the question arises for refund of his invested money with return or not. As we all aware such companies are misusing the innocence of Consumers and cheating the public by attracting the people through misleading advertisements. Not only through whatsapp communication by complainant to OP discloses that he has invested Rs.70,000/-, also through Ex.P.5 signed by both complainant & OP Proves the same, even though he produced documents for payment of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, complainant requested OP to refund Rs.70,000/- through whatsapp messages. But OP did not responded to his whatsapp messages exhibits that OP has no dispute about the receipt of Rs.70,000/-. It shows his negligence and the intention behind collecting the money not other than cheating. Hence in our view, complainant has placed evidence and proved his case. OP neither appeared before this commission nor submitted statement of objection to disprove their deficiency in his case, it amounts to deficiency of services and also OP is indulging in unfair trade practice. When such companies like OP are growing in the society, the consumers must enlightened with rights and should not fall in the pit of cheaters. They must be aware and alert about desire attitude of companies before going to transact with such companies. As we all aware, the people are interested to such dupes by their attractive representations. Hence OP is liable to compensate the complainant by refunding his amount.  In our considered view, it is fair to direct OP to stop such unfair trade practice U/S 39(1)(g) of CP Act, 2019. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

8. Point No.2:- Complainant proved that he strongly believed the representation made by to OP and invested Rs.70,000/- expecting Return of Investment along with invested amount but OP did not bother to return the investment amount and the benefit out of it. Hence complainant is entitled to get Rs.70,000/- from OP with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, instead of Rs.1,20,000/- , which seems to be exorbitant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

9. Point No.3:- Our findings on the basis of Point No.1&2, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

Point No.1:- Complainant is partly allowed

Point No.2:- OP is directed to repay Rs.70,000/-to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from respective payments till this order.

Point No.3:- OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from this order, failing which OP is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum after the expiry of 30 days on Award amount till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29^th day of MAY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;