DATE OF FILING: 26.09.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.02.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Joga Laxmi has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is a bona-fide customer of the O.Ps by purchasing of Redeemable Preference Shares from the O.P.No.2 & 3 through O.P.No.1. The complainant subsequently after motivation of O.Ps reinvested the dividend amount accrued from the above investment with the same O.Ps as Recurring Deposit @Rs.1000/-per month for 60 months. The plan value is Rs.60,000/-, the projected value of plan after expiry of term Rs.96,600/- with effect from 19.07.2011. The plan expired on 19.07.2016. The code number is MTIORTI02287. The O.P.No.1 is the sub-ordinate administrative Branch of O.P.No.2&3. The O.P.No.2 is the registered office whereas the O.P.No.3 is the Corporate Office. It is a professional corporate house having Mida’s Mission 2020. It is a ISO 9001-2008 certified corporate house. It is a registered company bearing CIN No.U74140OR1995PLC004269/ dated 24th September 2009. As per the advertisement of O.P.No.2, the complainant purchased the redeemable preference shares by investing in total of Rs.80,000/-which has been duly acknowledged by the O.P.No.1. Since the O.Ps succeeded to motivate the complainant not to debit the said dividend amount from bank and instead of reinvested into the Recurring Deposit scheme and accordingly, the complainant reinvested the dividend amount in Recurring Deposit scheme as mentioned supra from July 2011. Accordingly the O.Ps were credited the RD account @ Rs.1000/- per month of last 20 months out of 60 months and the total amount was of Rs.20,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to return the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant towards Redeemable Preference share , to refund the dividends since the date of allotment as per agreed rate of dividend, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- towards 20 months R.D. deposits in the best interest of justice.
3. The complaint is admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and filing written version on the date fixed. But the O.Ps did not prefer to appear even after publication of notice in the daily newspaper “Anupam Bharat” on 15.03.2014. As such the O.Ps are set exparte on dated 21.12.2015.
4. On the date of exparte hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant is present. We heard argument from the advocate for complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written arguments and materials placed on the case record. The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case of Ram Lal Aggrawalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd, 2013 (2) CPR 389 has held that “Policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain, complaint does not come within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. In the light of the above decision of law this case is not maintainable in Consumer Protection Act. However, the complainant is at liberty to file her case in proper Forum having jurisdiction.
In the result, the complainant’s case is dismissed on ex-parte against O.Ps without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 23rd February 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
