Consumer Complaint No.181 of 2014
Date of filing: 22.9.2014 Date of disposal: 05.9.2016
Complainant: Kanchan Chatterjee, S/o. Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, Village: Madhya Mankar, PO: Mankar, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 144, W.B.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Gold Mine Group of Companies Pvt. Ltd., 2/2A Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 014. Represented by Bablu Saha, S/o. Montulal Saha (Managing Director), Milan Park, Balagarh, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
2. The Branch Office of Gold Mine Group of Companies Pvt. Ltd., Vill. & PO: Budbud Bazar, Burdwan (near State Bank A.t.M.), District: Burdwan. Represented by Bablu Saha, S/o. Montulal Saha (Managing Director), Milan Park, Balagarh, Hooghly, PIN – 712 149.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Bikasah Kumar Roy.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Dipak Chowdhury.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not refund him the maturity amount in respect of several accounts.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being an ordinary common people the complainant wanted to make more money through savings through peaceful manner in order to maintain the daily life of him and his family in an easy manner. For that reason to make more savings with a good interest the complainant deposited entire savings in the projects of the OPs. Against those deposits the Ops issued documents wherein assurance was given to the complainant that he will be entitled to get his money back with the interest as per the terms of the policy. After maturity of the policy when the complainant claimed the maturity amount from the Ops on several occasions, the Ops have failed to keep their promises stating that they are not willing to return the maturity amount to the complainant. According to the complainant such action of the Ops can easily be termed as unfair trade practice and due to such practice the complainant has lost his entire savings which created irreparable loss and injury along with mental agony. The complainant availed of the services of the Ops personally exclusively for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood. As his grievance has not been redressed by the Ops, having no alternative has approached before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Ops to return the maturity amount of Rs. 19,87,040=00 to the complainant.
After admission of the complaint notices were issued to the Ops through this ld. Forum. On 27.5.2016 the Ops have filed vokalatnama and prayed time for filing written version. Prayer was allowed and date was fixed on 22.6.2016 for filing written version by the Ops. On 22.6.2016 as none was appeared on behalf of the Ops and in the meantime the statutory period for filing written version as per the C.P. Act has already been elapsed, hence this Forum was pleased to fix hearing of the complaint ex parte against the Ops. During final hearing on 23.8.2016 none was present on behalf of the Ops. Therefore, we take up the hearing of the complaint ex parte against the Ops.
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint and each and every document filed by the complainant. It is seen by us at the very outset that though in the Schedule ‘A’ the complainant has written that he deposited money in the MIS, FD and RD accounts but there are several documents available from the record reveal that he deposited money for purchasing several debentures. Therefore, primarily it is to be mentioned that the dispute regarding non-payment of debentures is not maintainable before this ld. Consumer Forum because the debentures are purchased by any customer for commercial purpose. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held in Unit Trust of India Vs. Sabitri Devi Agarwal [II (2000) CPJ (NC)] that “The Consumer Protection Act” is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses”. In the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das reported in [(1994) 4 (SCC) 225] wherein the question was whether a prospective investor in the shares/debenture of a Company is a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(d)(i), it was held that he was not.
In respect of the MIS A/c. no. G-011102, which was matured on 23.9.2013 to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. In respect of MIS A/c. no. G-011432 which was matured on 23.9.2013 to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. The MIS A/c. no. G-011430, matured on 23.9.2013 to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. The MIS being no. G-011104 which was matured on 29.2013 for Rs. 2,00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. The MIS A/c. No. G-022088 which was matured on 28.01.2014 for Rs. 3,00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. The MIS A/c. No. G-022043 which was matured on 31.12.2013 for Rs. 4,00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. The MIS. A/c. No. G-011103 which was matured on 26.9.2013 for Rs. 2,00,000=00, it is evident that one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000=00 was issued by the Ops, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. The FD being no. H-355542 matured on 05.10.2013 for Rs. 30,000=00, the Ops have issued one A/c. payee cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs. 33,600=00 towards maturity amount, but the same was not deposited by the complainant for encashment of the same. Though the complainant has mentioned the following numbers as MIS & FD numbers but the documents show that the same are not the certificates of either MIS or FD. Those certificates are for debentures i.e. C-319015, G-022092, M-004890, 17319, 14762,
G-023912, G-022722, G-022347, G-012462. As the matter of debenture cannot be adjudicated by this ld. Forum, we are not inclined to pass any order against those certificates. It is also noticed by us that out of above-mentioned certificates in respect of debentures several A/c. payee cheques were given by the Ops in favour of the complainant but in a similar manner those cheques were not deposited by the complainant for encashment. In the petition of complaint the complainant has prayed for the maturity amount in respect of G-022092 but the document shows that the maturity date is 13.01.2028, so as no cause of action has not yet been arisen in respect of that particular certificate, the complaint does not stand in respect of that certificate. In the petition of complaint the complainant has prayed for the maturity amount in respect of G-022722 but the document shows that the maturity date is 04.11.2017, so as no cause of action has not yet been arisen in respect of that particular certificate, the complaint does not stand in respect of that certificate. In the petition of complaint the complainant has prayed for the maturity amount in respect of G-011433 but the document shows that the maturity date is 06.08.2019, so as no cause of action has not yet been arisen in respect of that particular certificate, the complaint does not stand in respect of that certificate. We have also noticed that the complainant did not file the certificates of recurring deposits being no. H-209249, H-355540, H-355541. So we cannot pass any order in respect of those RD accounts.
Going by the foregoing discussion it can easily be said that though the Ops have issued
A/c. payee cheques in the name of the complainant to the tune of the maturity amount along with interest, but those cheques were not deposited by the complainant for encashment as mentioned earlier. Therefore, for such non- encashment of the amount due to non-depositing the same, liability cannot be put upon the shoulders of the Ops because the Ops have duly discharged their liabilities by issuing the cheques. Whether those cheques will be encashed or not that is the sole discretion of the complainant. It is seen by us that there are several laches on the part of the complainant and for such laches of the complainant the Ops should not be penalized. During hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that as he heard that several cheques of other depositors were bounced, he choose not to deposit the cheques issued by the Ops in his favour. Such stand/plea cannot save the complainant and we cannot pass any order in favour of the complainant because the complainant had acted on assumption and presumption basis. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for from this ld. Forum.
As the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by adducing convincing evidence, hence the complaint fails. Accordingly, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint being no. 181/2014 is hereby dismissed ex parte against the Ops without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
