Order No  14  dt.  17/09/2019

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant invested in fixed deposits, recurring deposits  for purchasing product of glass materials to be supplied by the company i.e., ESBI Industries Ltd., Shibdas Bhaduri Street, Kolkata – 700 004 or it’s subsidiary companies.

            The complainant purchased five nos. products of glass material with the condition by paying monthly payment of Rs.1,000/- per month for 12 months, by payment of Rs.10,000/- per month for 12 months, by payment of Rs.35,000/- for 12 months, by payment of Rs.17,000/- for 12 months and the remaining two products by payment of Rs.20,000/- each for 12 months. The dates of delivery of the materials were 11/08/2015, 31/01/2015, 27/09/2015, 29/09/2015, 29/03/2015 and 27/09/2015 respectively. But the deliveries of the said products had not been made by the company.  Complainant also invested a debenture by fixing an amount of Rs.4,01,000/- on 31/03/2014.

             On investing in various product of the company the complainant thus entitled to get Rs.9,80,700/- on maturity. The complainant, therefore, requested to o.p. for refund of the matured amount by issuing letter on 19/10/2016. On witnessing various types of money laundering and misappropriation of hard earned money collected from the investors by various companies, complainant had been remained in a state of panic and felt harassment and mental agony from non-response on the part of the o.p. when knocked for refund of money. For which the complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.ps for payment of Rs.19,27,600/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            The o.p. no. 3 contested the case by submitting w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The other o.ps. have been fixed as ex parte in this case.  In the w/v submitted by the o.p. no.3 (Mr. Biswajit Paul) one of the Director of SBI Glass Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of company argued that the case is not maintainable in law or in fact. Again o.p. stated that the complainant is not consumer as per the provision has laid down U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act,1986. The Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. also argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. the complainant filed this case by choosing a wrong Forum. On the basis of the such fact the o.p. no.3 is prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-

1. Whether the complainant paid the amount to the o.ps. for purchase of  various instruments as stated above?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
3. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

            The o.p. no.. 3 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The o.p. nos. 1, 2,4,5 and 6 remained absent in the proceedings and the case has proceeded ex party. It was stated that the complainant is not the consumer as per the provision as laid down u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986. The o.ps. also emphasized that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. The complainant claimed the amount prematurely as the redeemable preference share would be redeemed before due date. The complainant filed this case by choosing a wrong Forum. On the basis of the said fact the o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.           

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 invested in fixed deposits, recurring deposits  for purchasing product of glass materials to be supplied by the company i.e., ESBI Industries Ltd., Shibdas Bhaduri Street, Kolkata – 700 004 or it’s subsidiary companies.

            The complainant purchased five nos. products of glass material with the condition by paying monthly payment of Rs.1,000/- per month for 12 months, by payment of Rs.10,000/- per month for 12 months, by payment of Rs.35,000/- for 12 months, by payment of Rs.17,000/- for 12 months and the remaining two products by payment of Rs.20,000/- each for 12 months. The dates of delivery of the materials were 11/08/2015, 31/01/2015, 27/09/2015, 29/09/2015, 29/03/2015 and 27/09/2015 respectively. But the deliveries of the said products had not been made by the company. Complainant also invested a debenture by fixing an amount of Rs.4,01,000/- on 31/03/2014.

             On investing in various product of the company the complainant thus entitled to get Rs.9,80,700/- on maturity. The complainant, therefore, requested to o.p. for refund of the matured amount by issuing letter on 19/10/2016. On witnessing various types of money laundering and misappropriation of hard earned money collected from the investors by various companies, complainant had been remained in a state of panic and felt harassment and mental agony from non-response on the part of the o.p. when knocked for refund of money. For which the complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.ps for payment of Rs.19,27,600/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that that the case is not maintainable in law or in fact. Again o.p. stated that the complainant is not consumer as per the provision has laid down U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act,1986. The Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. also argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. the complainant filed this case by choosing a wrong Forum. On the basis of the such fact the o.p. no.3 is prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant paid for various instrument by installment or by fixed deposit a total amount of Rs.9,80,700/- . Against a claim of Rs.9,31,000/- in respect of recurring deposit @ Rs.70,000/- per month for 12 months complainant failed to submit the relevant certificate. Therefore, this claim of Rs.9,31,000/- cannot be considered along with this case.  O.ps have raised point that the complaint case filed by the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum. The complainant has approached this Forum for recovery of his money which has been invested to purchase the instruments from the company. On the other hand for fortifying their position as fund collecting company from the general public o.ps could not file any document to the effect that they obtained permission from SEBI. Again, o.p. no.3 has not raised any complaint regarding the amount deposited by the complainant. since the complainant in spite of repeated request to the o.ps the amount was not refunded, therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps and the complainant will be entitled to get amount matured along with compensation and litigation cost. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                        Hence, ordered,

            That the case no.285/2018 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no. 3 and ex parte against the other o.ps. The o.ps  are jointly and severally  directed to pay Rs.9,80,700/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighty Thousand and Seven Hundred) only along with compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four 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.