Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

Having been deceived by the opposite parties as mentioned above, in the matter of investment of a certain amount and corresponding return of principal and interest, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as follows. (Contd.)

On different dates, during the period from10.05.2016 to 03.12.2016, the complainant invested different amounts under a particular investment scheme with the opposite parties, which appear to be a private investment company.                                                                                                                   The total investment thus made amounted to Rs.16,10,000/- and the entire payments were received by the opposite parties in their account maintained with ICICI Bank through NEFT/RTGS/Cash deposit. Initially the complainant received interest on the principal amount for a certain period of time. But reportedly from 30.01.2018 the opposite parties stopped paying interest and gave a verbal proposal to the complainant to make refund of the principal amount only. But in spite of continuous persuasion, the complainant failed to get back the principal amount.

On 17.03.18 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding the principal amount along with 15% interest within seven days. But this was also an exercise in utter futility.

 Eventually, the complainant approached to this Commission for redressal of his grievances and  prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.16,10,000/-, a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.

At the very outset, it should be pointed out that in view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are concerned.

The opposite parties are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/- .Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

So far as the history of the case concerned, the opposite party no.2 that is the proprietress of the so called investment company, submitted only a written objection questioning the maintainability of the complainant petition. However, this District Commission in its order dtd. 05.10.2021observed, that the complainant, being an investor was a consumer and preferred the right forum for redressal, highlighting the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In the result, the petition of the opposite part no.2 questioning the maintainability of the complaint petition was dismissed without costs. 

Materials on records are perused.                                                                     

The opposite parties appeared only in connection with their objection in the matter of maintainability of the petition and as soon as the petition was rejected they preferred to shun the proceedings of the case. As a result of which, this Commission was compelled to hear this case ex parte against both the opposite parties.

The complainant in support of the allegation leveled against the opposite parties, has submitted certain documents viz. photocopies of 1) the first page of the bank passbook, 2) the particular page of the pass book in which the fund transfers to the opposite parties are reflected, 3) application forms submitted before the banks for transfer of money and 4) the corresponding money receipts made in plain papers.                                                     (Contd.)

Furthermore, it is stated in the brief notes of argument that during pendency of the case the opposite parties issued one account payee cheque bearing no.004012 dtd.16.03.2019 drawn on ICICI Bank, Chandannagar Branch in favour of the complainant towards refund of the deposited amount. However the cheque was dishonored on presentation, assigning the reason ‘Account closed’. Photocopy of the dishonored cheque also is submitted.

However the case runs ex parte against the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not feel it necessary to defend their case by submitting evidence on affidavit. No documents from the opposite parties’ end have been submitted before this commission.

On careful examination of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that there was deficiency of service and grossly unfair trade practice which is as good as cheating.  However the opposite party No.1 is the organization itself and the opposite party No.2 is the proprietress of the said organization.

Hence it is

                                                ORDERED

That the complainant case no. 99 of 2018 be and the same succeeds on contest but on part.

The opposite parties will be jointly liable to pay back the complainant the entire invested amount of Rs.16,10,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost within sixty days from the date of this order.          

In the event of failure to comply with this order the opposite party no.1 will pay cost of Rs.10,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid account. The complainant also will be at liberty to take legal action for execution of this order.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in.