Order No. 19 dt. 06/09/2017
The fact of the case according to the complainants, in brief, is that complainants, a doctor by profession & his businessman son , purchased 3 Flexi Bonds by investing Rs.3,00,000/- @ Rs.1,00,000/- for each bond from M/s Sumangal Industries Limited, Dilakash, Jangipara, Hooghly with the assurance that against each bond an amount of Rs.1,58,000/- will be remitted to the depositor on 22.07.2013. Accordingly 3 post dated cheques being nos. 756232 dated 22.07.2013, 756228 dated 06.08.2013 and no.756231 dated 06.08.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Chowringee branch , Kolkata-700071 amounting to Rs.1,58,000/- each were issued in the name of Rampada Das, complainant no-2 and Indrajit Das complainant no-1 for payments on maturity of the said flexi bonds. M/s Sumangal Industries Limited (o.p) runs various types of product selling business by engaging agents. One such agents convinced the complainants to purchase Flaxi Potato Bond to have a multiple return (1.2 times to 1.5 times).Being allured by the agents, complainants had also purchased 2 Flaxi Potato Bond on 28.08.2012 serial no.S39783 and S39784 against purchase price of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,15,000/- respectively against which two (2) post dated cheques were also issued, the maturity date of which were 27.11.2013. After maturity of the Flaxi Potato Bond, Complainant no.2 submitted a cheque having serial no.756232 for withdrawing Rs.1,58.000/- (the matured value) at SBI, Colony More Branch but the cheque was dishonored on 31.07.2013 with the note there, on the cheque ‘ bounce back for insufficient fund’. Similarly complainants when submitted other post dated cheques so far retained in their custody faced the same unfortunate result. Those cheques were also bounced back for insufficient fund. Such activity on the part of the o.p. might be a glaring example of unfair trade practice for which the complainant had been suffering from tremendous mental agony,anxiety and unnecessary harassment. On 09.09.2013 complainants apprised their unfortunate events to the o.p for taking steps in this regard. The o.p. did not respond to the cry of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainants have jointly lodged this complaint praying for direction to pay matured amount of Flaxi Potato Bond with interest with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
Though the case had been filed against o.p. nos. 1 and 2 but o.p.no.1 had been expunged by the complainant and o.p.no.2 remained exparte in this case on 28.08.2014.
On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants come under the provision 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act.1986 ?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service/UTP on the part of the o.p?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer of the complainant argued that complainant no.1 is a doctor by profession and complainant no.2 is a businessman and M/s Sumangal Industries Ltd (o.p.) runs various types of business including selling of Flaxi Potato Bond’ for harvesting huge amount of profit by the investor. The bonds are usually one year to one & half year duration, in one of such bond the date of purchase being 23.04.2012 and the date of sale being 22.07.2013. Within this short period smart investor can earn money smartly, the return of investment being 1.2 time to 1.5 time of the amount invested. within a very short time one can earn huge profit or huge loss. No financial institution can provide such a lucrative return. Value of this bond fluctuates like prices of shares in the Share Market.
Again, complainant no.1 is a doctor by profession and complainant no.2 is a businessman. None of the two complainants has demanded that they purchased those flexi bonds for the purpose of their earning livelihood. Actually, they invested their money for commercial purpose. Therefore, both complainants are not consumers under the provision 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act.1986. As complainants are not consumers, they have no locus standi to file consumer complaint.
We hold that the case filed by the complainant is a misconceived one and the same is not maintainable and accordingly the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
that the case no.656/2013 is dismissed without cost exparte against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
