BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.270 of 2016
Date of Instt. 21.06.2016
Date of Decision : 27.09.2016
Hardev Singh son of Tara Singh R/o Village Boparai Kalan, Tehsil Nakodar, Jalandhar through his attorney holder Ram Krishan Mahey son of late Sh.Jagar Ram, R/o XIII 4616, Green Model House, PS Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Prism Industrial Complex Limited, FF-2, 1st floor, Urvashi Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Sigra, Varanasi, UP, through its director Naveen Partap Singh.
2nd Address
Prism Infracon Limited, Branch Office 302-B, 3rd Floor, Grand Mall, GT Road, Jalandhar.
2..Naveen Partap Singh Director of M/s Prism Industrial Complex Limited, P-42-N, Ground Floor, Back Portion Manton, Unique Park, Parnsaree, SBI, Kolkata-700034.
3.Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Director of M/s Prism Industrial Complex Limited, C/o Basundra Transport, 2, Nawab Lane, Kolkata-700007.
4.Kaushik Ghosh Director of M/s Prism Industrial Complex Limited, 40/37, Kotal Ghata, P.O.Kushberia, Howrah-711316.
5.Annu Loharuka Director of M/s Prism Industrial Complex Limited, 443, Jassore Road (N) B.Khal-N, Bazar PR No.182 DUM 700074.
6.Prism Infracon Limited, (Trustees to the Debenture holder of M/s Prism Industrial Complex Limited), 124, Karaya Road, Kolkata-700017, through its Mg.Director Mr.Koushik Ghosh, and office at:-Ecoscape Business Park, Plot No.II/FII, Block-4A, 5th Floor, New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 through its authorized signatory.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Jagroop Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint through his attorney holder Ram Krishan Mahey under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant invested his money with the OP No.1. The OPs 1 to 6 have allotted 2300 Debentures on 31.12.2012 with distinctive No.AL1071691-AL10739 90. The tenure of debentures is 36 months as per debenture certificate annexure-B. The debenture certificate number is PICL-LA0003404 and registered folio number is AL-3404 issued by the aforesaid company. The redemption date of the aforesaid debentures was 31.12.2015 with redemption amount Rs.3,45,000/- including interest and the total yield including loyalty bonus 14.47% compounded annually. OP No.1 is a Public Limited Company registered as Indian Non Government Company engaged in manufacturing packaged drinking water, soda and also entered into food and hospitality sector and started chain of units with micro-brewery unit in Bangalore. The company has also vast tracts of developed land in vicinity of Kolkata for housing project whose about to commence constructions. The OPs are operating different branches, out of which is located at Jalandhar City i.e. OP No.1. The OP No.6 is also a Public Limited Company engaged in business of financial inter-mediation. The complainant submitted that OPs No.1 to 6 conspired to cheat investors by collecting money in unlawful and misleading manner by issuing debentures certificates instrument termed as “fully paid up secured redeemable non convertible debentures” carrying fixed rate of return in utter violation of Companies Act, SEBI Act, Listing regulations, Chit Fund Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The complainant alleges that OPs No.2 to 5 illegally and unlawfully collected the money from various investors by issuing illegal, unlawful and misleading security instrument in the form of debentures certificates in violation of provisions of Companies Act, SEBI Laws, Listing regulations, etc etc. Thereby, they have played fraud, cheating, criminal conspiracy with the investors which amounts to criminal act under India Penal Code. The complainant has invested Rs.2,30,000 and he was allotted 2300 debentures with promise to pay the amount on the date of maturity which fall on 31.12.2015. The complainant approached the OP No.1 branch office at Jalandhar and tendered his original debentures certificate for the release of the payment but they did not release the payment of the aforesaid debentures alongwith bonus, thereby violating the provisions of Companies Act and complainant made several requests to the OPs No.1 to 6 to repay his redemption amount alongwith bonus etc but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the record i.e. pleadings of the complaint and the documents produced on record by the complainant and have come to the conclusion that the complainant invested his money amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- in open market in the shape of debentures. Resultantly, the OPs allotted 2300 Debentures on 31.12.2012 to the complainant with distinctive No.AL1071691 -AL1073990. The debentures also include loyalty bonus. The OP No.1 is a Public Limited Company engaged in different business i.e. manufacturing packaged drinking water, soda and has also entered into food and hospitality sector. The company has also vast tracts of developed land in Kolkata etc being land developers. All this shows that the complainant has invested his money in the open market in the form of units of debentures. The price of debentures is likely to increase or fall, on the basis of market value of debentures just like investment/proceeds of shares in open market. These debentures can be sold and bought at any time in the open market. These debentures are in the form of units, the value of which is likely to increase and fall as per market trends. These debentures are just like shares with only difference that share holder becomes the owner in the assets of company to the extent of his/her shares. Whereas debenture holder is a lender of money for investment in the project of the company. So it is an investment of money in speculative business in the open market just to earn profits. Therefore, the debentures holder does not fall within definition of consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been held by our own Hon'ble State Commission in case Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2014 that “ the Consumer Forum is not to enforce speculative transactions. Where the funds are invested in equity market which is speculative in nature, the investor does not become consumer”. The Hon'ble National Commission in case Ram Lal Aggaarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr III(2013) CPJ 203 (NC) has held that "The investment made by the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit. Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties”. The Hon'ble State Commission of Odisha in case of Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd, First Appeal No.162 of 2010 has held that “The money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market/open market is no doubt a speculative gain and speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal". The same view has been taken by our own Hon'ble State Commission in case Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.407 of 2011, decided on 22.9.2014.
3. In the present case, the complainant has invested his money in the open market in the form of units/debentures i.e. in speculative business just to earn profit, forming commercial transaction because the debenture value is depending on market volatility and the value of debenture may go up or come down depending on the market condition/trends. The investment has been done strictly on the basis of written request of the complainant in the prescribed performa. So, the debentures have been bought by the complainant with a view to earn gain/profit and the Consumer Forum is not to enforce the speculative transaction.
4. In the light of above discussion, we hold that the complainant can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Resultantly, the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant with liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
27.09.2016 Member President
