DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 83   of  2013

     Mr. Sanjit Shil,
     Siddhi Ashram,
     Agartala, West Tripura.                .........Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

     1.       Mr. Sanjit Chakraborty,
Chairman and Managing Director,
Cosmic Negotiators Limited,
1A, Bose Pukur Road (Flat-1B),
Kolkata-700042,

     2.       Mr. Bijay Krishna Adhikari,
Director of Cosmic Negotiators Limited,
         Pratapgarh (Near Bazar),
Agartala, West Tripura.

     3.       Mr. Niranjan Pal,
Director of Cosmic Negotiators Limited,
Radhanagar, Agartala, West Tripura.   .......Opposite Parties.
    

  __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant       : Sri B.K. Bhattachatyya.
                          Advocate. 
                           
For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2    : None appeared.
                 
For the O.P. No. 3        : Sri Tapan Saha, Sri Kaushik Indu and 
                  Sri Debal Saha.
                  Advocates.
        

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : -  04.03.15.

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act')  filed by the complainant, Sri Sanjit Shil  of Siddhi Ashram, Agartala against the O.Ps, namely Sri Sanjit Chakraborty, Chairman and Managing Director, Cosmic Negotiations Ltd. and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and efficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case gathered from the record is that the complainant had deposited money under various schemes  floated in the name of Fixed Deposit scheme, Monthly income scheme and Monthly Deposit Scheme on different dates viz 30.11.06, 31.12.08, 31,03,09 and 31.10.09 respectively with Cosmic Negotiations Ltd. Agartala Branch. The total amount involved in this account were Rs.2,98,000/-. It is alleged that the O.P. Company disappeared by not paying back the matured amount payable to the Complainant interms of the schemes.  According to the complainant, the O.Ps are guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service.

3.        The O.Ps No. 1 and 2 did not contest the case. Though the O.P. No.3 filed written objection, yet he also ultimately did not proceed with the case.

4.        The O.P. No.3, in his written objection, has stated that he was never the Director of the company as alleged. He was simply a clerical staff of the company. Therefore, he has no liability to pay the matured amount of the bonds purchased by the complainant from the company.

5.        The complainant has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his claim.

Findings:
 
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
    (i) Whether the O.P. Company failed to pay back the matured amount of the bonds invested by the complainant in different schemes; 
    (ii) Whether the O.P. Company is guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service.
7.        We have already heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
        
8.        It appears that the complainant made deposit with the O.P. Company, namely Cosmic Negotiations Ltd. under various schemes in response to the offer from the company inviting deposits from the general public with the promise of good returns. There can not be any doubt about that promising good return and promote repayment on maturity is 'the provider in service' within the meaning of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant being a investor with the O.P. Company is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) of the Act. 

9.        Now, let us examine whether the O.P. Company has failed to repay the assured amount for the various schemes subscribed by the complainant within the promised time. The certificate dated 30.11.2006 issued by the Company indicates that the complainant had booked a plot measuring 2700 sq ft with the company on payment of a single deposit of Rs.15000/-. Matured date of the scheme was 30.11.13. It is alleged that the company did neither allot the plot nor had returned the deposited amount with interest. 

10.        It appears that the complainant become the member of another scheme vide certificate No- 21-91125 dated 02.01.10 on payment of monthly installment of Rs.1000/-. The complainant was required to deposit the total amount in 24 equal monthly installments @ Rs. 1000/- per month. On maturity of the scheme, he is likely to get a plot of land measuring 3704 sq ft. The scheme was matured  on 31.10.11. It is alleged that the O.P. did neither allot the plot of land as agreed upon nor had returned the deposited money with interest. As per provision of the Act, a complaint is to be filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Since the complainant did not file the complaint before this Forum within the stipulated time, this is bar red by limitation so far  as the above scheme is concerned and no relief can be granted in this regard.

11.        The complainant also became subscriber of the schemes, namely MIS under the certificates issued vide Nos 21-91125 dated 06.03.07 and 27.05.09. By the said scheme, he booked 2 plots of land  measuring 18000 sq ft and 27000 sq ft with the company on payment of monthly installments of Rs.1000/- and 1500/- respectively. Maturity dates of the said schemes fall on 30.6.15 and 30.9.15 respectively. We think that the complainant has approached this Forum for relief under  the above schemes in a premature stage since the cause of action will start running from date of maturity  of the schemes on 30.6.15 and 30.9.15. 
        
12.        Admittedly the O.P. Company did neither allott the plot of land measuring  2700 sq ft as assured to the complainant within the promised time of maturity on 30.11.13 in terms of the bond issued by them on 30.11.06. nor had returned the deposited amount with interest. It is needless to say that non payment of the matured amount within the promised time amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. 

13.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is partly allowed. The O.P. No.1 is directed to allot the plot of land measuring 2700 sq ft to the Complainant as assured by them by dint of a bond dated 30.11.06 issued by them within 2 months from the date of  judgment or to return the  deposited amount of Rs.15000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. with effect from 30.11.06 the O.P. No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment together with Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. The Complainant in respect of the O.Ps No. 2 & 3 is dismissed.
     

14.                                                                                       A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.