DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.01.2020.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Debendra Sahu has filed this consumer complaint 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 his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a bona-fide customer of the O.Ps by purchasing of Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs.2,80,000/- from the O.P.No.2 & 3 through O.P.No.1. By investing the said amount the Opposite Parties committed to give the dividend @30% per annum to the complainant with certain terms and conditions. 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.2,80,000/-which has been duly acknowledged by the O.P.No.1. As per commitment of O.Ps, the complainant got a sum of Rs.5000/- per month for 3 years as per Annexure 4, amounting to Rs.1,95,000/-, Rs.1000/- per month for 2 years 6 months as per Annexure 5 amounting to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1000/- per month for 2 years 6 months as per Annexure 6 amounting to Rs.30,000/- from the date of allotment respectively and the amount was received in toto was a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- out of Rs.4,20,000/- till filing of this case. Subsequently the O.Ps to avoid the further payment of Rs.1,65,000/- and 100% return of the invested amount after completion of term of 5 years to the complainant. Now the O.P.No.1 and 2 left the office due to hue and cry of the depositor and general public at large. Inspite of the above approaches, no tangible steps has been taken by the O.Ps as a result the complainant sustained financial losses, mental harassment day in day out. 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.2,80,000/- paid by the complainant towards Redeemable Preference share with 10% interest annum, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- 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 03.01.2017. As such the O.Ps are set exparte on dated 04.07.2017.
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. In the instant case, it reveals that the complainant has purchased three redeemable preference shares by investing of Rs.2,80,000/- i.e. (1) 20000 shares of Rs.10/- per unit on 09.01.2009, (2) 4000 shares of Rs.10/- per unit on 16.07.2010 (3) 4000 shares of Rs.10/- per unit on 28.07.2010 from O.Ps. As per commitment of Opposite Parties, the complainant has received @ Rs.5000/- per month for 3 years 3 months, amounting to Rs.1,95,000/- , Rs.1000/- per month for 2 years 6 months amounting to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1000/- per month for 2 years 6 months amounting to Rs.30,000/- from the dates of allotment respectively and the amount was received in total was a sum of Rs.2,55,000/-. It also reveals that inspite of repeated approach by the complainant the O.Ps neither returned the investment amount nor paid the rest dividends to the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no material on record to establish that the complainant is involved in any share trading business. Further, it reveals from the Brochure of the O.Ps that the Investor shall get 100% of the investment amount after “5” years. Hence in our considered view, the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
5. Law is well settled in case of Nirma Ltd. Versus Keshav Dev Maheswari & Ors reported in IV (2016) CPJ 475 (NC), wherein it is held by the Hon’ble National CDR Commission that “Investment in bank deposits, shares, mutual fund, etc. does not mean that such investors are engaged in commerce or business- Earning returns by way of such investments is altogether different from generating profits by way of trading or manufacturing activity- Making an application for allotment of just 100 shares can not come under definition of commercial purpose- Complainant is a consumer”.
6. After observation of the aforesaid citation the complainant’s case is partly allowed on ex-parte against O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the investment amount i.e. Rs.2,80,000/- alongwith rest dividend amount to the complainant. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.2000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant. Both the orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within “45” days from date of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum. The order is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 24th January 2020 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 www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
