Orissa

Cuttak

CC/224/2023

Meenakshi Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,L & T Infrastructure finance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

17 Oct 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.224/2023

 

Meenakshi Misha,

W/o: Late N.K.Mishra,

At present residing at:C/o:Ahswini Mohapatra(Retd. D.J),

Plot No.825/7,Judges Colony,Sector-10,

CDA,Bidanasi,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

Pin-753014(Odisha).                                                       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Managing Director,

L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd.,

Regd. Office:Mount Poonamallee Road,

           Manapakkam,Chennai-600089,

             Tamilnadu,India

 

2. L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd.,

Corporate Offaice:3B,Laxmi Towers,

C-25,”G” Block,Bandra-Kurla Complex,

Bandra ( E),Mumbai-400051,

Maharastra,India represented through

Its Corporate Office-in-Charge.                                                … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    30.06.2023

Date of Order:  17.10.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :           Mr. T.K.J.Samanta,Adv. & Associates.

         

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                   

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that the complainant had purchased 20 number of long-term infrastructure bonds with a face value of Rs.1000/- each from the O.P company vide Folio No.20541628 and Certificate No.209577 on 10.1.2012.  The Buy-back facility was also available at the end of  5 years and 7 years for the said long term infrastructure bonds those which were purchased by the complainant and the O.P company had issued Debenture Certificate-cum-Long Term Infrastructure Bond from 201108 series to the complainant.  The said Debenture Certificates were not to be transferred till 9.1.2017 which is a lock-in period.  The complainant with an intention of getting more benefit preferred to wait till the maturity date of the said bonds and after expiry of 10 years from the date of allotment of those bonds i.e. after 10.1.2022, the complainant had made correspondences with the O.P company for getting the assured sum credited into her Bank Account and had provided her Bank Account details accordingly.  She had her bank account in the Punjab National Bank vide her A/c. No.297700100019323.  After making correspondences with the O.P Company through mail, the complainant could know that the maturity value of Rs.44,612.20p has been processed through NEFT to the PNB Account No.7977000100019373 on 10.1.2022.  The UTR No. of the said electronic transaction is INDBN10014285765 and she was thus advised by the O.P company to provide her bank account statement.  The complainant to her dismay could know that no such amount was ever credited to her bank account rather her maturity amount had gone to a wrong account belonging to a stranger, due to the sheer negligence of the O.P Company which she had intimated immediately to the O.P company through e.mail on 30.5.2022.  Thereafter, inspite of several endeavours, correspondences and efforts, the complainant could not get back her matured sum from the O.P company who were rather callous towards the grievances of the complainant.  Having no other way out, the complainant had issued a legal notice to the O.P company on 1.6.2023 demanding her maturity value from them with interest thereon @ 18% on it. After getting the legal notice, the O.P company awoke from its deep slumber and immediately had credited the maturity sum of Rs.44,612.20p belonging to the complainant to the PNB account of the complainant but had not given any amount towards the interest upon the said maturity amount even though the money was not sent by them promptly to the bank account of the complainant.  It is for this, the complainant has come up with her case before this Commission praying therein to direct the O.Ps in order to pay her interest @ 18% per annum upon the maturity value of Rs.,44,612.20 from 10.1.2022 onwards till the total amount is quantified together with another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of her litigation.  She has also prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith her complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version through which they admit about the complainant to have purchased 20 number of Long-Term Infrastructure bonds of  2011B series under Folio No.20541628 from the O.Ps.  They also admit that after maturity of the said bonds which they had processed for the redemption amount of Rs.44,612.20p into the complainant’s registered Punjab National Bank A/c. No.7977000100019373 on 10.1.2022 as per the bank details recorded earlier.  The O.Ps allege through their written version that the complainant while filling up her application form had erroneously mentioned her A/c. No. as 977000100019373 for which the payment was processed to the said account and subsequently, the amount was again transferred to the bank account of the complainant under intimation to her.  Thus, it is the contention of the O.Ps that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost since because the petition of the complainant is not tenable in the eye of law.

          Together with their written version, the O.Ps have filed copies of certain documents in order to support their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issues no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions from either sides and also after perusing the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that here in this case, admittedly the complainant had purchased 20 number of Long-Term Infrastructure Bonds with a face value of Rs.1000/- each under Folio No. 20541628 and Certificate No.209577 on 10.1.2012 from the O.P Company.  Admittedly, the complainant had asked for the maturity value after elapse of 10 years i.e., after 10.1.2022.  The contention of the O.Ps is that they had processed the maturity amount and had credited to the Punjab National Bank Account as provided by the complainant while she had filled-up her application form.  While advancing argument, the O.Ps had drawn attention of this Commission towards the original filled-up form of the complainant vide Application No.50171002 which they had filed in this case.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant had filled up her Account number at Punjab National Bank to be of 7977000100019373 for which they had credited the maturity amount in the said account initially.  But on perusal of the original form that which has been provided by the O.Ps and is available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant has mentioned therein at her Application No.50171002 that her Punjab National Bank Account at Chandra-Sekharpur Branch,Bhubaneswar is 2977000100019323.  As it is noticed here in this case, the O.Ps without  minutely following the particular Bank Account number of the complainant had callously/negligently credited the maturity amount of the complainant to the tune of Rs.44,612.20p to another erroneous account which do not belong to the complainant of this case.  Rightly, the complainant had pointed out such mistake on the part of the O.Ps and had made several endeavours through e.mails in order to get back her maturity amount but the O.Ps were in deep slumber till they received the legal notice of the complainant and immediately thereafter, they started processing to credit the said maturity value to the proper bank account of the complainant. 

While advancing argument, the learned counsel for the O.Ps urged that it is the fault of the complainant and not that of the O.Ps. But on scrutiny of the original proposal form that which was filled up by the complainant herself, it is noticed that she had mentioned that her Punjab National Bank A/c number which definitely differs from the account number to which the O.Ps had initially sent the maturity value of the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant while submitting his argument had drawn attention towards the Income Tax statement of the complainant which reflects that TDS was deducted by the O.Ps from the proper bank account of the complainant for her maturity value though the money was credited to another erroneous account.  While raising doubt this Commission wanted clarification from the O.Ps that when they had credited the maturity amount of the complainant to the erroneous bank account of a stranger, which according to them, was provided by the complainant, as to how could they deduct the TDS to that effect from the proper bank account of the complainant?  The learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps had then tried to mislead by casting a cloud of doubt and thereby dragging  this Commission into ambiguity. But on proper verification, it is noticed that it is the callousness or rather negligent attitude of the O.Ps which resulted in crediting the maturity value of the complainant to another erroneous account which do not belong to the complainant but the complainant had to pay the TDS unnecessarily for her maturity amount that which was not even credited to her bank account by the O.Ps.  Moreso, it is the paramount duty of the O.Ps while processing credit of the maturity amount into the bank account of the investor, to verify the authenticate name and address alongwith the bank account number.  This has not been done by the O.Ps in this case as it is noticed.  This clearly signifies the moral turpitude suffered by the complainant which imbibes us to arrive at a definite conclusion that here in this case, the O.Ps by crediting the maturity amount of the complainant to the tune of Rs.44,612.20p after the maturity period of 10 years to another erroneous bank account of a stranger and subsequently crediting the said amount to the account of the complainant after receiving her legal notice without paying any interest thereon signifies the deficiency in the service of the O.Ps so also justifies practice of unfair trade by them.  Accordingly, this important issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.i.

While advancing argument, the learned counsel for the O.Ps has urged that this case is not maintainable which could have been dismissed in limine.  But it is noticed  here in this case that when the complainant without any fault of her could not get her maturity amount from the O.Ps which they had callously credited to the account of a stranger instead of crediting it to the proper bank account of the complainant and when the O.Ps received the legal notice of the complainant they started processing and crediting the said maturity value of the complainant to her proper account but had not paid any interest thereon,  it can be definitely said here in this case that case of the complainant is maintainable simply because the moral turpitude that which she had undergone by sending one after another e.mails to get back her hard-earned money with its profit and interest thereon from the O.Ps. 

The O.Ps have cited decisions of Hon’ble higher courts in this regard which are as follows:

i.          Decision of the Hon’ble National C.D.R. Commission in the case of  Som Nath Jain Vrs. R.C.Goenka & Anr., reported in I (1994) CPJ 27 (NC) wherein the lordships have expressed serious doubt whether the complaint qua it would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Because, qua such transactions, elaborate evidence needs to be taken regarding purchase and sale of shares, their prevalent price in the market and evidence regarding passing of instructions by client to the broker.

 

2.  West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Kolkata in case of Ramendra Nath Basu V. Sanjeev Kapoor & Anr., reported in I(2009) CPJ 316, qua shares trading has held that transactions between parties do not come under purview of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

3. Similar view was taken by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of Anand Prakash Vrs. A.M.Johri & Ors, reported in III (2000) CPJ 291, by holding that sale purchase of shares are commercial transactions, so complaint is not a ‘consumer’ in such cases.

After perusal of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Higher Courts, it is noticed that those differ widely from the facts and circumstances of this case, hence those are not applicable to the present case in hand in any manner.

Accordingly, this case is definitely maintainable and this issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.

                                              ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay the complainant interest @ 8% per annum with effect from 10.1.2022 till 12.6.2023 on the maturity value of Rs.44,612.20p so also to pay her a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of her litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of   October,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.      

                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                President

                     

                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                          Member