Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that being convinced by the statement of Bajaj Capital Ltd. and also being allured by the higher rate of interest as offered by Morepen Laboratories for fixed deposits @ 10% p.a. interest and being attracted by the company status and business background as highlighted by the Bajaj Capital Ltd., complainants invested money on 12.08.2002 for getting such assurance that such sort of deposit is safe and complainants shall have to get guaranteed for timely repayment with interest of maturity of the said deposits on 12.08.2003 and in fact 7 complainants deposited principal amount of Rs.25,000/- each with hope that each of them shall have to get matured amount against their each deposited amount to the extent of Rs.27,886/-.

          Subsequently as per the instruction of Mr. Sushil Suri C.M.D. in his letter dated 25.08.2003 and also as advised by M/s Bajaj Capital the complainants, after maturity surrendered fully discharged FD receipts through Bajaj on 18.08.2003 for sending those to Morepen for early repayment and the receipts were forwarded to Morepen, Delhi on 20.08.2003.

          Thereafter complainants repeatedly approached Bajaj Capital at Kolkata and Delhi to help them for repayment of FD as assured and guaranteed by them before making the deposit.  But unfortunately no help for repayment was given to the complainants by the ops.  Subsequently complainants contacted Mr. Bharadwaj, FD Manage, Morepen at Delhi over telephone repeatedly but no repayment was made.  Though Morepen at present is highly profit earning company and their business is running well and the market value of their share is high and the market value of their share roaring at present.  As per the order of CLB dated 19.08.2003 which has been circulated by Mr. Sushil Suri M.D. of Morepen Laboratories in his letter dated 25.08.2003 which had been forwarded to the complainants by Bajaj Capital along with their letter dated 19.11.2003 and the complainants were supposed to get the FD amount.

          But in respect of the repeated reminders and follow up with both Bajaj Capital & Morepen Lab. No payment has yet been received except Rs.10,000/- and further no post dated cheque for the first installment was given to the complainants although they had surrendered the FD receipts as per their instruction given in the same circular by C.M.D.

          But just before filing this complaint, complainants received repayment roughly 20% of deposit by 8 cheques of Rs.8,750/- each out of which one cheque no. 336798 of Mr. A.K. Das for Rs.8,750/- bounced and same has been taken by the company.  But no action has been taken and complainants have been deceived and have been facing much hardship for not getting the same and practically ops are unwilling to pay the FD maturity amount but using the money wrongfully for their capital gain neglecting the decision and directive of company law Board causing irreparable loss and damage to the complainants and in the present complaint complainants prayed for redressal before this Forum.

          On the other hand Bajaj Capital by filing written statement submitted that complainants are not a consumer to the Bajaj Capital (Op) because they purchased the FD from Morepen Lab and Bajaj Capital only acted as agent and complainant submitted their FDs to the Morepen Lab for releasing the maturity amount and all other allegations of the complainants are false and fabricated and op Bajaj Capital never issued any such FD and for which the present complaint should be dismissed against Bajaj Capital (op no.1).

          On the other hand op no.2 Morepen Laboratories Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that due to continue of financial constrain of the op company, op company filed a petition u/s 391 of Companies Act, 1956 before the Hon’ble High Court, Himachal Pradesh to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement and compromise u/s 391 of the companies Act and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 28.06.2004 was pleased to convene a meeting of the fixed deposit holder to consider the scheme and in pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed on 28.06.2004 and as per this order two cheques were paid to the respective depositors.  But complainants with mala fide and malicious intention in the year 2009 filed the instant consumer complaint case before this Forum without disclosing the facts that complainants have already received the amount of FDRs and they had not approached the Forum with clean hands and fact remains op no.2 company issued cheques in favour of the complainants for the amount of FDRs which were duly encashed by the complainants  and the amount was also credited in the respect bank accounts of the complainants and op would pay the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- against the aforesaid FDs and op company status of the cheques in respect of two cheques being No.336798 and 336816 amounting to Rs.8,750/- and therefore the op company had his another cheque being no. 692729 against the aforesaid two cheques which was encashed.  But anyhow complainants stated in their complaint on para-5 against two FDs and part payment of Rs.8,750/- each against balance 6 FDs thus a total of Rs.62,500/- only have been received by the complainants in respect of receipt of balance payment has been deliberately concealed by the complainants with utmost malafide and malicious intention and op has further submitted that complainants with utmost intention files false statement in this case and for which the entire complaint should be dismissed and when the total FDs had already been paid by the op no.2.  So, the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                        Decision with reasons

          On proper study of the complaint, it is found that the above complaint is filed by the present complainants against the ops’ deficiency in service and they have claimed the FD amount along with interest, compensation for mental harassment and agony including litigation cost etc and fact remains the judgement was passed in the present case on 05.10.2012 by the previous Bench of this Forum against that ops filed appeal in FA No.12/2012 before State Commission, West Bengal and that appeal was finally disposed on 05.10.2012 and the judgement was set aside and remanded for further fresh hearing and for order.

          So, after receipt of the record on remand and after hearing argument from both the sides and also considering the judgement of the State Commission passed in FA No. 12/2012 it is clear that complainant has appeared before State Commission and admitted that they had already received Rs.1,23,750/- and Rs.67,500/- out of the total fixed amount and their claim, now in respect of Rs.8,750/- and interest of Rs.1,64,663/-.  So, no doubt complainants present claim comes down to Rs.1,73,413/-.  In this regard we have heard the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of the op no.2 who submitted that as per order of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed on 28.06.2004, complainants are not entitled to get any further amount.  But considering the present materials including the judgement of different Forums, it is found that when the op no.2 company received money against the FDs then it is their duty to give the maturity amount and no doubt the maturity amount was due as on 12.08.2003.

          But since 12.08.2003 and till to date complainants ultimately paid Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2009.  So, in between the period from 12.08.2003 to 09.07.2009 no interest has not been paid but it is the legal and bounden duty of op to pay interest and no doubt in this case it is proved that op no.2 company invested that amount and enjoyed the profit of the investment of the complainants but has not paid any interest.  So, invariably as per provision of FD it is the legal and bounden duty on the part of the op no.2 to pay the entire interest for that period from 12.08.2003 to 09.07.2009 and after calculation of the total amount of the FD including the rate of interest and the non-payment of interest for that period, it is clear that complainant are entitled to Rs.1,64,663/- but not more than that, because in respect of dishonoured cheque for sum of Rs.8,750/- that has already been paid to the op by the complainant.  Moreover complainants also got another amount Rs.10,000/-. 

          So, after proper evaluation of the entire materials and also relying upon the argument and also evaluation of the documents including the judgement of the State Commission, it is clear that complainants are entitled to Rs.1,64,663/- finally as interest over the said amount since 2003 and op no.2 is legally bound to repay the same without showing any cause and fact remains that the complainants have been deceived by the op no.2 and in this regard practically there is no liability on the part of the Bajaj Capital Ltd. because he did not receive the amount against issuance of the FD, but FDs were issued by the op no.2 and op no.2 received it through agent i.e. Bajaj Capital Ltd.  So, no way Bajaj Capital Ltd. is liable to pay any compensation.

          But fact remains complainants are consumer under op no.2 i.e. Morepen Laboratories but not under op no.1 M/s Bajaj Capital Ltd. and in view of the above findings we are convinced to hold that complainants had been able to get their claim partly and they are entitled to Rs.1,64,663/- from the op no.2 and op no.2 shall have to pay the same to the complainants by issuing such cheques divided into seven halves because complainants are seven in number at this stage because Arun Kumar Das already expired and his name has been expunged from the complaint and for long period of harassment of the complainants caused by the op no.2, op no.2 shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.21,000/- to the present complainants by dividing it into seven halves and issue such amount of cheaue also in favour of the seven complainants and also litigation cost as it would be awarded.

          Hence, it is

                                                            ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op with cost of Rs.10,000/- and same is dismissed against the op no.1 but without any cost.

          Op no.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,663/- as unpaid interest and also a sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation to the present seven complainants after dividing it into seven halves within one month from the date of this order along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.

          Op no.2 is hereby directed to comply the order very strictly failing which op no.2 shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs.500/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected same shall be deposited to this Forum and op is directed to comply the order very strictly failing which penal prosecution u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them and for which they may also be sent to jail and the property may be adopted and some other proceedings may be started for the satisfaction of the decree and if it is found op no.2 is reluctant to comply this order of this Forum.