DATE OF FILING: 26.09.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.02.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant T.V. Ramana Babu 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 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 from the O.P.No.2 & 3 through O.P.No.1.. 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.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and the total amount was Rs.1,00,000/- which has been duly acknowledged by the O.P.No.1. As per commitment, the complainant got a sum of Rs.2500/- per month for 2 years 4 months only from the date of allotment and the amount was received a sum of Rs.70,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/-. Subsequently, the O.Ps to avoid the further payment of dividend a sum of Rs.80,000/- and 100% return of the invested amount after completion of term of 5 years to the complainant, gave deaf ear to the demand of the complainant from time to time at the office of the O.P.No.1 & 2 but to no avail. On account of the service deficient by the O.Ps the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.80,000/- towards margin for coming 2 years, 6 months with interest at the rate of fixed deposit i.e. 10% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. 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.1,00,000/- 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 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 his 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
