DATE OF FILING : 27-02-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 25-03-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12-11-2014.
1. Mrs. Basanti Ghosh,
wife of Sri Sailesh Chandra Ghosh,
101/C/1, Brindaban Mullick Lane, P.O. Kadamtala,
District – Howrah.
2. Mrs. Jaya Smanta,
wife of Sri Kanai Samanta,
3. Shri Kanai Samanta,
son of late T.C. Samanta,
4. Deblina Samanta,
daughter of Sri Samanta,
residing at 20/1/4, Brindaban Mullick Lane, P.O. Kadamtala,
District – Howrah.
5. Mr. Nipendra Nath Biswas,
son of late Biswas, residing at 223/2, Upen Banerjee Road,
Paranashree, Kolkata – 700060.
6. Mrs. Monalisa Adak,
wife of Sri Amitava Adak,
57/1, Kantapukur 3rd Bye Lane,
District – Howrah. ---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. MPS Greenery Developers Ltd.,
having its registered office at
MPS ENCLAVE, Commercial Building, Village – Dighisole,
P.O. Dahijuri, Jhargram, West Midnapore,
PIN – 721504.
2. MPS Greenery Developers Ltd.
being represented by its Director viz.
Santanu Chowdhury, having its Kolkata Office
at MPS ENCLAVE, P-112, Block ‘B” Lake town,
Kolkata – 700089.
3. MPS Greenery Developers Ltd.
being represented by its in-charge Viz.
Mr. Palash Pattanayak and Mr. Amit Adya
having its unit office at
11/2/1, Bhagawan Chatterjee Lane,
Howrah – 711101.
4. MPS Greenery Developers Ltd.,
having its Corporate Office at OM TOWERS,
32, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700071.
5. Mr. Pramatha Nath Manna,
Chairman CUM Managing Director,
344A, Lake Town Kolkata
Kolkata 700 089.
6. Mr. Santanu Chowdhury,
Executive Director,
having its official address at MPS Enclave,
P-112, Block “B” Lake Town,
Kolkata – 700089. ---------------------------------------------Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainants of six numbers, by filing a joint petition U/S 12 of the C.P.
Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) have prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay their maturity amount of monthly recurring deposit, monthly income scheme as well as fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 7,71,967/-, to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- along with other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainants made investments in monthly recurring deposit, monthly income scheme as well as fixed deposits issued by the o.ps., on different dates vide Annexures of P/1 to P/17 collectively. Their certificate nos. are as follows :
1. Mrs. Basanti Ghosh - MIS Certificate nos. 000372, 000373, 002193, 000336.
2. Mrs. Jaya Samanta - Fixed Deposit No. 016863, 015189, Recurring Deposit No. 008709, MIS Certificate nos. 001336, 016201, 007107, 013575,
3. Shri Kanai Samanta - MIS Certificate nos. 007108,
4. Deblina Samanta - Fixed Deposit Certificate no. 006370,
5. Mr. Nipendra Nath Biswas – Fixed Deposit No. 017723,
6. Mrs. Monalisa Adak - Fixed Deposit Nos. 000841, 001508.
3. O.Ps. promised to pay the monthly interest on the due dates. But it is alleged by the complainants that o.ps. have not paid their monthly interest since December,2013 without any valid reason. Complainants repeatedly went to the office of o.ps. but on different pleas they have returned the complainants without giving their monthly interest. It is further stated by the complainants that with this monthly interest, they are to run their livelihood, meet medical expenditure, children’s education etc. which are really at stake. Even in January, 2014 complainants filed a joint petition with a request to release their monthly interest as well as the maturity amount of the fixed deposits. But no fruitful result came out. So, finding no other alternative, complainants filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
4. Notices were served. They appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.ps. and noted its contents. It is the specific plea taken by o.ps. that SEBI had attached the bank account of the o.ps. since 25-10-2013. Even the o.ps. have also mentioned about Order no. RO/003/2014 ( Recovery Certificate no. 20 of 2013 ) dated 6th June, 2014 issued by Recovery Officer of SEBI restraining the o.ps. from disposing, transferring, alienating, changing all immovable properties held by the o.ps. To be precise, o.ps. have become totally handicapped with respect to making any payment to its investors. Even o.ps. have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint petition on the plea that complainants have not made SEBI as an opposite party who have attached their bank accounts. And on this very ground o.ps. are not in a position to withdraw any amount from their bank accounts. Even o.ps. have prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint petition. Here we take pause. O.ps. have not annexed any order of any higher authority showing that there is any kind of specific embargo on the payment of maturity amount of the complainants. And for argument sake, even if the bank accounts are attached by the SEBI, are the complainants responsible for that ? Why they should be harassed like anything? People invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. If they cannot utilize their hard-earned money at their bare necessities what is the use of making an investment or savings ? Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, people make an investment for all future needs. So entire spirit of making investment is getting frustrated. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep their promise which they made on the face of the Bond certificates issued by them in favour of complainants. For their own wrong doings, why complainants should suffer at all ? Accordingly, the plea taken by o.ps. is not at all tenable with respect to the non-payment of maturity values. complainants have lost his faith on O.Ps. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep their own promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainants should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 102 of 2014 ( HDF 102 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are directed jointly and severally to pay the principal amounts of monthly income scheme along with upto date monthly interest as well as the maturity amount of fixed deposit and recurring deposits along with the upto date interest with respect to all the certificates held by the complainants within one month from this order i.d., 10% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amounts till actual payment.
The complainants do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 6,000/- as litigation cost and o.ps. are directed to pay the same with one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
