District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 329/2021.

 Date of Institution:08.07.2021.

Date of Order: 15.02.2023.

B.R.Goel (HUF) S/o late Shri Inder Mal, R/o H.No. 939, Sector-14, Faridabad – 121007.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                M/s. Vayda Securities Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director Sh. Anil Jindal through Jail Superintendent (presently lodged in Neemka Jail in FIR Ni, 111/2018), Faridabad.

2.                Sh. D.K.Aggarwal, Director, M/s. Vayda Securities Pvt. Ltd. R/o H.No. 1445, Sector-7E, Faridabad – 121006.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Manoj Kumar Gupta,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Parveen Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1.

                             Sh. D.K.Aggarawal appeared in person on behalf of opposite party No.2.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the opposite party company was a registered financial institution which deals in Vayda Securities and for that purpose, called for investments from prospective investors.  The opposite party company further assured to the complainant that investment with opposite party No.1 provides handsome return.  The complainant invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- out of which Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No. 779106 dated 23.01.2014 drawn on IOB Bank, Faridabad and Rs.20,00,000/- through RTGS dated 8.4.2014 with opposite party No.1 company on the assurance of Managing Director and Director of M/s. Vayda Securities Pvt. Ltd. Invested money with opposite party No.1 Company.   Since Managing Director and Director of opposite party company were known to the complainant and complainant required money for its livelihood henc eon their assurance Karta of HUF invested money with opposite parties @ interest of 9% p.a.  The Karta acquired said money from his retirement benefits..   The complainant had not been receiving interest on the invested money either cash or through cheque at the agreed rate rather it was told by opposite party company that accrued interest was being re-invested alongwith principal amount.  The flooring amount stands due against opposite parties:

Total principle amount                                :         Rs.25,00,000/-

Interest @ 9% P.A. for 86 months               :         Rs.16,12,500/-

                   Total                              :         Rs.41,12,500/-

Seeing the market  situation, the complainant was in need of money hence requested opposite parties to return his money but they had been evading on one pretext or the other.   The complainant sent legal notice  dated 22.4.2021 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                make the payment of Rs.41.12,500/- invested by complainant with opposite party company alongwith interest accrued interest till date and pay future interest @ 24% p.a..

 b)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant.

2.                Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint.   The answering opposite party was neither Managing Director nor involve in any capacity of opposite party No.1 and had no right title or concern with the day to day activities of opposite  party No.1.  It was further submitted that the complainant himself admitted that he invested the money in opposite party No.1 company i.e its means a commercial transaction and the commercial transaction were not involved in Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party No.1  denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant does not fall under the category of complainant as defined in Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection act, 2019.   The complainant had not made any complaint about any ‘defect” I any goods purchased from the opposite parties as define din Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection act. 2019 as he had not purchased any goods from the opposite party No.2.  The complaint was barred by limitation as define din Section 69 of the Consumer Protection aCt,2019. Opposite party No.2  denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– M/s. Vayda Securities Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a)  make the payment of Rs.41.12,500/- invested by complainant with opposite party company alongwith interest accrued interest till date and pay future interest @ 24% p.a.. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidaviat of Shri Bhagat Ram  Goel,  Ex.C-1 & 2 – Bank acknowledgement receipt, Ex.C-3 – Statement of account, Ex.C-4 – legal notice, Ex.C-5 & 6 – Postal receipts, Ex.C-7 – Statement of account,, Ex.C-8 – Customer Account Ledger report.

                   Shri Parveen Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1 has made a statement that written statement filed by opposite party No.1 may be read as evidence eon behalf of opposite party No.1 and accordingly evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been closed vide order dated 05.12.2022.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite party  No.2strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  No.2 Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of  Shri D.K.Aggrwal S/o Shri Shyam Sunder R/o 1445, Sector-7E, .Faridabad.

7.                On perusal of the complaint it is evident that the  complainant invested the money in opposite party No.1 company i.e it means a commercial transaction and the commercial transaction are not involved in Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint does not fall within the ambit of Consumer as defined under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                   Counsel for the  complainant has placed on reliance the following authorities:

(i)                 Konkan Vibhagiya Committee & Ors. Vs. Kiran Narayan Dangi & Ors. Passed by Maharashtra State Consumer disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 142 of 2003 decided on1.7.2003.

ii)                Adelkar Pratibha B and Others Vs. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. In consumer case No. 85 of 2007 decided on 16.2.2015 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

iii)               Madhukar Dnyandeo Chothe Vs. C.U.Marketing co. in complaint No. 359 of 1999 decided on 27.12.2002 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.

iv)               Kalika Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Yogiraj Warle & Sale and Anr. Passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in first appeal Nos. 373to 378 of 2014 decided on 14.01.2015

v)                Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. Unique Shanti Developers & Ors. Passed by Hon;ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 12322 of 2016 decided on 14.11.2019.

vi)               Sunil Kohili & anr. Vs. M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 9004-9005 of 2018 decided on 01.10.2019.

Ratio of these authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case

 8.               Keeping in view of the above, , the complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  15.02.2023                                          (Amit Arora)

                                                                                            President

                        District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                         (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                              Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                          (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                               Redressal Commission, Faridabad.