Consumer Complaint No. 179 of 2014
Date of filing: 22.9.2014 Date of disposal: 19.9.2016
Complainant: Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, S/o. Late Satyanarayan Chatterjee, residing at Vill: Madhya Mankar, PO: Mankar, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 144.
-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, Bikash 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 Complainants u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 having same interest, alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not pay them the maturity amount in respect of the MIS Accounts inspite of making several requests.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainants is that they being the ordinary common people wanted to make more money through their savings in a peaceful manner in order to maintain their daily life easily. For that purpose to make more savings with a good interest they deposited their entire savings in the projects of the OPs. Against those deposits the OPs have issued documents i.e. certificate, receipt etc which ensured that the Complainants will be entitled to get their amount back with interest as per the terms of the policy. After maturity of the policies when money was claimed by the Complainants, the OPs took time repeatedly to return the maturity amount, but failed to keep their promise on several times and then having no other alternative the Complainants have approached before this Ld. Forum because the action and attitude of the OPs have revealed that they are not willing to return back the maturity amount to the Complainants as per the terms and the conditions of the policy. Due to such unfair trade practice as adopted by the OPs the Complainants have lost their entire savings and due to which they are facing mental agony, pain, harassment along with financial stringency. By filing this complaint the Complainant have prayed for direction upon the OPs to return them a sum of Rs.19, 23,124=00 towards the maturity amount of several MIS accounts and to pay them a sum of Rs.76, 876=00 as compensation due to harassment, mental pain and agony.
After admission hearing notices were issued upon the OPs through the approved method for issuance of notice as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the unserved envelops have returned with the endorsement as ‘left’ and ‘left without address’, the Complainants were directed to take appropriate steps. After taking steps further notices were issued upon the OPS and the OP-2 & 3 have appeared by filing vokalatnama on 13.03.2015 and prayed time for filing written version. As the OP-2 & 3 did not file written version till 03.07.2015, the Ld. Forum was pleased to pass an order that the complaint will run ex parte against the OP-2 & 3. On 24.07.2015 as the notice in respect of the OP-1 had returned further with the endorsement as ‘left’, the Complainants were directed to take proper step. Thereafter the Complainant had prayed for changing the cause title of the complaint by deleting the names of the OPs and inserting the name of the OPs with changed addresses and accordingly the prayer was allowed by the Ld. Forum on 04.02.2016. After filing necessary requisites by the Complainants notices were issued upon the OPs. On 27.05.2016 the OPs have appeared by filing vokalatnama and prayed time for filing written version, but since then the OPs did not turn up to contest the complaint either by filing written version or by making oral submission. So the Ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for hearing argument ex parte against the OPs. Accordingly we took up the hearing argument from the Ld. Counsel for the OPs and none was present on behalf of the OPs.
We have carefully perused the record, papers and documents filed by the Complainants and heard argument at length from the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants. It is seen by us that the case of the Complainants is that they deposited their hard earned money in different projects of the OPs with a view to get more money along with lucrative interest from those deposit. After making payment by the Complainants the OPs have issued policy certificates in favour of the depositors. According to the Complainants they deposited money in several MIS accounts. The allegation of the Complainants is that after maturity of those accounts though the Complainants on several occasions have approached before the OPs for getting the maturity amount along with interest in respect of their deposit, but the OPs did not take any step to return back them the maturity amount in respect of those accounts and not only that the OPs did not pay any heed to the requests made by the Complainants. According to the Complainants such attitude and inaction of the OPs can be termed as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence by filing this complaint the Complainants have prayed for return back their deposited money along with interest as per the terms of the policies and other reliefs.
It is stated by Mr.Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee that he deposited money in several MIS accounts for Rs.8,00,000/- in total and he is also entitled to get monthly interest from those accounts to the tune of Rs.25,998/- in total. We have noticed that the OPs have issued a/c payee cheques in favour of Mr. Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee on different dates i.e. Rs.1083/- dated 30.07.2014, 30.08.2014, 30.09.2014 in respect of debenture certificate no-123/05/2706, Rs.1083/- dated 30.07.2014, 30.08.2014, 30.09.2014 in respect of debenture certificate no-123/05/226456, Rs.2167/-dated 29.07.2014, 29.08.2014, 29.09.2014 relating to the debenture certificate no-123/05/224403, 224402, Rs.4333/- dated 24.07.2014, 24.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 relating to the debenture certificate no-123/05/224400,224399, 224397, 224405. For what purpose those cheques were issued in his favour, the petition of complaint does not contain the said averment. Admittedly Sri Bhattacharjee did not deposit those cheques for encashment before the concerned authority and the reason is best known to him. Moreover though the Complainant-Mr.Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee has mentioned that he deposited money in several MIS accounts, but the certificates speak otherwise to the extent that the certificate are for purchasing Debenture It is settled legal position that the dispute/matter related with share/debenture cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum/Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 225, the question was whether a prospective investor in the shares/debenture of a company is a consumer as defined in the section 2 (1)(d)(ii). It was held that he is not. Therefore in view of the abovementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Complainant-Mr. Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee cannot be termed as consumer within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as enumerated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is mentioned that Sri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee deposited money in MIS and RD account in the project of the OPs for Rs.9,00,000/- & Rs.40,320/- respectively, but the maturity dates has not been mentioned by Mr. Chatterjee. From the documents as filed by the Complainant Sri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee that there is no mentioning on the documents that Sri Chatterjee deposited money in MIS & RD accounts and not only that no dates of maturity are mentioned in the said documents. Therefore whether any cause of action has at all arisen or not in respect of the MIS & RD accounts of Sri Chatterjee, the picture is not clear. We have also noticed that several A/c payee cheques were issued by the OPs in favour of Sri Chatterjee on different dates and for different amounts i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- dated 27.09.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2013, Rs.1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2013 Rs.1,00,000/- dated 27.07.2013. For what purpose those cheques were issued in his favour, the petition of complaint does not contain the said averment. Admittedly Sri Chatterjee did not deposit those cheques for encashment before the concerned authority and the reason is best known to him.
From the abovementioned observation it can be said that the Complainants have miserably failed to prove their case by adducing cogent documents that inspite of maturity of the accounts obtained from the OPs, the OPs did not bother to make payment of the maturity amount along with interest component as per the terms and conditions of the accounts/policies. Hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is 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.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
