Complaint No: 88 of 2022.

                                                                 Date of Institution: 08.06.2022.

                                                                        Date of order: 06/02/2024.

Kashmir Singh aged about 73 Years Son of Sh. Dilbagh Singh, resident of House No. 162/2, New Sant Nagar, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Aadhaar No.2135 4197 9280.

                                                                                                                                                                   …..........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                     VERSUS

1.       M/s. Prosperity Agro India Ltd., Registered Office Prosperity Heights, Office No. 102, Stilt First Floor, CTS No. 6769, Mitra Mandal Chowk, Pravati, Pune, through its Managing Director. Pin Code – 411009.

2.       M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Multi-State Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd., Registered Office - 4th Floor, Tantra Building, Yashodhan Business Complex, Ghole Road, Shivaji Nagar, through its Managing Director. Pune – 411005.

3.       M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Food India Ltd., Office No. 1, 1st Floor, Sr. No. 63/2B/9, The Forum Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune Maharashtra, through its Managing Director. Pin Code – 411009.

4.       M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Food India Ltd., Ward No. 3, B-11-54, Near Shere Punjab Foundry & Engg. Works, G.T. Road Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, through its Branch Manager. Pin Code – 143505.

5.       Mahesh Kisan Motewar Son of Sh. Kisan Bhagawan Motewar, resident of Flat No. 5, Ganraj Heights, Kashinath Patil Nagar, Dhankwadi,    Police Station Sahakar Nagar, District Pune, Maharashtra, Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Food India Ltd.

6.       Vaishali Mahesh Motewar Wife of Sh. Mahesh Kisan Motewar, resident of Flat No. 5, Ganraj Heights, Kashinath Patil Nagar, Dhankwadi, Police Station Sahakar Nagar, District Pune, Maharashtra, Director of M/s. Prosperity Agro India Ltd.

7.       Leena Motewar Wife of Sh. Mahesh Kisan Motewar, resident of Flat No. 5, Ganraj Heights, Kashinath Patil Nagar, Dhankwadi, Police Station Sahakar Nagar, District Pune, Maharashtra, Director of M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Multi-State Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd.

8.       Ravail Singh Son of Sh. Hardev Singh, resident of old Taragarh Road, Near A. S. Garden, Tehsil Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.

9.       Jaswant Singh Son of Sh. Natha Singh, resident of Village Banthawal, Tehsil Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                           .....Opposite Parties.

10.      Anad A Katke, the Liquidator of M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Multi-State Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd, Pune.

Office Address: 576/2B, Fourth Floor, Landmark Building, Shirole Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. Pin Code – 411004.

                                                                                                                                                  ….Performa Opposite Parties.

                                                      Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S.Dhakala, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Parties No.8 and 9: Sh.Rahul Vashisht, Advocate.

             None for the Opposite Parties No.2 and 10.

             Opposite Parties No.1,3,4,5,6 and 7 exparte.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Kashmir Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s. Prosperity Agro India Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that  the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are associated companies and are running their business of investment of money in the shape of deposits / investment from various individuals customers / investors under collective investment scheme related to farming of / rearing livestock Goat and Buffaloes. The opposite parties No. 5 and 7 are its Chairman and Managing Directors and the opposite parties No. 8 and 9 are working with the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 as their agent. It is pleaded that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.13,14,000/-  with the opposite parties No. 1 to 7 on the asking and through the opposite parties No. 8 and 9, who are the agent / employee of opposite parties No. 1 to 7. It is further pleaded that as per the plan of investment (of Rs.6,00,000/- in one time investment) as disclosed by the opposite parties No. 8 and 9 to the complainant was that if the complainant will invest his amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in one time investment scheme with the opposite parties No. 1 to 7, then their company will return an amount of Rs.6,00,0000/- on the date of its maturity alongwith yearly return of Rs.96,000/- up to 6 years i.e. from the date of investment till its maturity (Rs.96,000 X 6 = Rs.5,76,000/-). The opposite parties also issued six postdated cheques (July 2014 to July 2019) of amounting to Rs.96,000/- each of opposite party No. 2 i.e. Samruddha Jeevan Multi-State Multi-Purpose Co-Operative Society Ltd. to the complainant for securing yearly return of profits to the complainant. It is further pleaded that at the time of making payment by the complainant to the opposite parities, the opposite parties executing a rearing contract with the complainant bearing document No. 386119 dated 17.07.2013, document No. 138281 dated 17.07.2013. The opposite parties also told that their company is the best platform to invest the money and to get the best growth of the investment. The complainant came to the talks of the opposite parties and invested the above mentioned amount with the opposite parties with the hope of getting better future return in lieu of the investment made by him with the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties No. 1 to 7, with the money of the complainant and also money collected from the other investors have purchased land measuring about 114 Acres comprised in Khewat No. 7/7, Khatoni No. 8, Rect. No. 6 Killa No, 12(8-0), 13/1(7-12), Rect. No.12 Killa No. 16(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(7- 12), 22/1(4-0), 23(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No. 6 Killa No.19(7-11), 20(7-11), 21(8-0), 22(8-0), Rect. No.8 Killa No.25(8-0) Rect. No.13 Killa No.1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 7(8-0), 8(8-0), 9(8-0), 10(8-0), 12(8-0), 13(8-0), 14(7-11), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8-0), 21(8-0), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), 24(5-14), Rect. No. 15 Killa No. 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(4-4), 7(3-12), 8(8-0), 9(8-0), 13(8-0), situated at Village Moth Sarai, Had Bast No. 705, Tehsil Kahnuwan District Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that the above said land was purchased by the opposite parties No. 1 to 7 for doing their business of live stocks as farm land and also for securing the maturity values of the investment made by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has complied all the conditions as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the rearing contract. The opposite parties No. 1 to 9 as per the terms of the policy, had also started giving yearly profit of Rs.96,000/- and the complainant on the asking of the opposite parties got encashed three cheques out of total six cheques of amounting to Rs.96,000/- each (i.e. total Rs.2,88,000/-).  But, thereafter the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 refused to enchased the remaining there cheques. It is further pleaded that when the complainant approached to the opposite parties and asked about the reasons for non-payment remaining amount, then the opposite parties No. 1 to 9 told to the complainant that now they will pay yearly profit in cash to the complainant instead of postdated cheques issued to the complainant. So, in this way the complainant got returned of yearly profits in total of Rs.2,88,000/- out of total Rs.5,76,000/-. The complainant is still having three postdated cheques of Rs.96,000/- each issued by the opposite parties, which the opposite parties have failed to get encashed the same.  It is further pleaded that the complainant had invested his huge amount with the opposite parties only to get the best growth of his investment and not for any other purpose. However, as per the terms of the policy the opposite parties No. 1 to 7 have failed to handover any live stocks or maturity values / amount assured under the rearing contractor executed between the complainant and the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that as per the documents / live stocks rearing contracts duly executed between the opposite parties No. 1 to 7 and the complainant on dated 30.04.2013, it was one of the terms and conditions at serial No. 16 that ‘In case of failure of contractor (i.e. opposite parties No. 1 to 7) to hand over Live Stock or to pay amount assured under present rearing contract, inspite of all compliance on the part of owner (i.e. complainant), in that eventuality for every dues of rupees twenty thousand from contractor to owner, automatic charge will be created on contractor’s farm land to the extent of one thousand square feet in favour of owner. Consequently owner shall have liberty to proceed to take action in respect of contractor’s farm land to that extent in accordance with law’. It is further pleaded that as said the opposite parties No. 1 to 7 have failed to handover live stocks or assured amount. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get charge on the land and also to get maturity value of amount invested by him with the opposite parties by way of selling the same. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties due to their act and conduct have committed offence of cheating and breach of trust with the complainant and other investors. So, may criminal cases have been registered against the Directors and Promoters in various police stations across the India including that at Pune and Bhuvneshwar for offences covered under Section 420 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860, read with section 4, 5, and 6 of prize chits and money circulation scheme (Banning), Act. It is further pleaded that at the time of executing rearing contract by the complainant with the opposite parties No. 1 to 7, the opposite parties given allurement of higher rate of interest and profit on his investment, but the opposite parties have failed to fulfill their promise. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties as they have failed to make the payment inspite of the fact that the due date for making the payment has already been passed. The complainant has already completed all the formalities. The complainant has also approached to the office of opposite parties so many times, but of no use. It is further pleaded that the complainant came to the talks of the opposite parties No. 1 to 9 and invested an amount as mentioned above in the companies of the opposite parties No. 1 to 7 on the asking of the opposite parties No. 8 and 9 with the hope of getting better future return in lieu of the investment, made by him. But, the opposite parties have now committed fraud, breach of trust and cheating and the whole property situated in the India including the property as detailed above have been attached by SEBI (Securities & Exchange Board of India) which is also evident from the entry made in the revenue record Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 vide Rapat No. 88. It is further pleaded that the complainant also came to know that, the Government of Maharashtra have appointed to the opposite party No. 9 as the Liquidator of M/s. Samruddha Jeevan Multi-State Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd. Pune for calculation of the amount of loss of the investors and the sale of the properties of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 including the property as detailed above to fulfill the loss of the investors. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached to the opposite parties and also approached to the liquidator, and narrated the entire incident and requested to make payment of the maturity value of the investment made by them. The opposite party No. 10 firstly put the matter with one pretext or the other and asked the complainant to remain waiting for the auction of the properties of the opposite parties No. 1 to 7, but at last he has also flatly refused to make payment of the complainant from the sale value of the properties of the opposite parties No. 1 to 7. So, it clearly depicts the mala fide intention of the opposite parties and they have declined the legal and genuine request of the complainant, which compelled him to take legal action against them. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay amount of Rs.19,73,137/- i.e. maturity value of the amount invested by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of it become due, till its actual realization, and with further direction to pay compensation as damages for humiliation, harassment, agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant from the hands of the opposite parties and litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Opposite party 10 had sent letter/written reply dated 04.07.2022 to this Commission by post as per which it is pleaded that CBI Bhubneswar has handed over the offices sealed by them to Mr.Kshirsagar in September and October 2019 but no record was found in the premises. By an order dated 17.09.2020 of Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi, Mr.Anand Katke has taken the charge as a liquidator from Mr.Kshirsagar on 20 October, 2020. In the end it is pleaded that not a single claim has been settled from the date of winding up orders due to non availability of funds.

4.    Opposite parties No.1,3,4,5,6 and 7 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.09.2022.

5.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.8 and 9 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as per the provisions of law before this Hon'ble Commission and the matter is subjudice therefore Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is pleaded that it is wrong that the answering opposite parties No. 8 and 9 are the working agents of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4. In fact, the answering opposite parties No.8 and 9 are the investors of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and every investor is considered as agent of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4, if they recommend any new client to them. Moreover, the complainant is also investor cum agent of the opposite parties No. 1 to 4. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that the complainant invested their money to the answering opposite parties No. 8 and 9. In fact, the answering opposite parties No. 8 and 9 never met with the complainant, which is crystal clear from the receipts which are attached herewith complaint in which the agent numbers mentioned is not related to the answering opposite parties No.8 and 9.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.8 and 9 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Kashmir Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-27 alongwith complaint.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.8 and 9 has placed on file affidavits of Ravail Singh S/o Hardev Singh and Jaswant Singh S/o Natha Singh as Ex.OP-8,9/A alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite parties No.1 to 4 are associated companies and running business of investment of money for rearing live stock goat and buffaloes. Complainant had invested Rs.13,14,000/- with opposite parties No.1 to 7 on the asking of opposite parties No.8 and 9. It is further argued that as per investment plan in case of investment of 6,00,000/- in one time investment scheme with the opposite parties No.1 to 7, then their company will return the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on the date of its maturity alongwith yearly return of Rs.96,000/- upto 6 years from the date of investment till its maturity i.e. Rs.5,76,000/-. The opposite parties also issued six post dated cheques of Rs.96,000/- each and entered into rearing contract with the complainant. The opposite parties purchased land measuring 114 acres in village Moth Sarai, District Gurdaspur out of collected amount to carry on business. It is further argued that opposite parties got encashed only three cheques of Rs.96,000/- each i.e. total Rs.2,88,000/- out of the total six cheques to the complainant and refused to get the remaining cheques encashed. It is further argued that there after many cases were registered against the opposite parties throughout India and property of opposite parties has been attached by SEBI and opposite party No.9 has been appointed as Liquidator. It is further argued that complainant is entitled to receive Rs.19,73,137/- i.e. maturity value of the amount invested alongwith interest @ 18% from the due date till realization. Failure to pay the amount amounts to deficiency in service.

11.     Opposite party 10 had sent joint letter/written reply dated 04.07.2022 to this Commission by post as per which it is pleaded that CBI Bhubneswar has handed over the offices sealed by them to Mr.Kshirsagar in September and October 2019 but no record was found in the premises. By an order dated 17.09.2020 of Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi, Mr.Anand Katke has taken the charge as a liquidator from Mr.Kshirsagar on 20 October, 2020. In the end it is pleaded that not a single claim has been settled from the date of winding up orders due to non availability of funds. Hence, considering the above facts, petitioner be directed to submit his claim to this office.

12.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.8 and 9 has argued that opposite parties No.8 and 9 are not the agent of the other parties and have been wrongly impleaded as parties

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite parties No.8 and 9 and also gone through the letter sent by opposite parties No.2 and 10 jointly.

14.     To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of agreement Ex.C2, copy of rearing contract with complainant Ex.C3, copy of sale registration letter Ex.C4, copies of cheques Ex.C4 and copies of receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C27.

15.     It is not in dispute that the complainant had invested Rs.13,14,000/- with the opposite parties No.1 to 4 and was promised of maturity value by the opposite parties No.1 to 7 but perusal of letter dated 04.07.2022 shows that opposite party No.10 was appointed as liquidator to settle the claims of all the investors after realization of assets and receivables of the society. Copy of order dated 18.04.2016 issued by the Govt. of India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare shows that after receiving complaints in the department Mr. Satish S. Kshirsagar, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies/Project Director A.I.D.I.P., Pune, O/o Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Maharashtra was appointed as liquidator Under Section 80 (1) of the Act to wind up the above society as per the provisions of the MSCS Act, 2002 rules made there under. The liquidator has been directed to finalize the proceedings within three months from the date of order. As such we have no hesitation in holding that since the property of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 has already been attached which is also admitted by the complainants and opposite party No.10 has been appointed as liquidator, as such the complainant is required to file claim before opposite party No.10.

16.     Accordingly, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to the complainant to submit his claim before opposite party No.10 and thereafter opposite party No.10 shall take into consideration the claim filed by the complainants as per law with the prescribed time.

17.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Feb. 06, 2024                                                        Member.

*YP*