IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2018
Present: Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan Member
Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No. 125/17 (Filed on 24/05/2017)
Between:
Thankamma Cyriac,
Chittettukalam,
Devagiri P.O. Kangazha,
Kottayam – 686555 ……….Complaint
Kerala.
And :
- PACL INDIA LIMITED,
22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower,
Sansar Chand Road,
Jaipur – 302004.
7th Floor, Gopaldas Dhawan,
28 Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi – 110001.
- PACL INDIA LIMITED,
2nd Floor, A Nrayanan Shop Complex,
Abv Amarjothi, Kadappakkada,
Kollam – 691008.
- Shelly Kuriakose,
Eravikulangara (H),
Devagiri P.O.
Kangazha – 686 555 ……….Opposite parties
(Adv. Sunny James)
O R D E R
Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant is a subscriber of opposite party’s invest scheme from 23/06/2011onwards. According to her, she had regularly remitted instalment of Rs.1,000/- to opposite party 1 and 2 upto March 2015. It is further contented that opposite party 3, the Homeo Doctor by profession who instigated the complainant to joint this scheme. Opposite party 3 made to believe complainant that if she would paid the above said amount Rs.1,000/- in all months for 5 year and 6 months she will get Rs. 90,000/- at the time of expiry. Accordingly the complainant believed all these words and paid Rs.45,000/- regularly to opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 in 45 monthly instalments. It is contented that she remitted the above said amount from her hard earned money, when the complainant demanded the paid amount from opposite parties, they did not ready to refund the said amount with interest as requested by the complainant. When the complainant approached the agent opposite party 3 he informed that the subject matter of the case is pending before the Supreme Court, thereby only after the final Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the money can be disbursed as per the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore the complainant filed this case before this Forum to get the refund of Rs.45,000/- with interest, cost, compensation etc.
This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite party 1 to 3 for appearance.
Though all the opposite parties received notice from Forum except opposite party 3, opposite party 1 and 2 remain absent, hence opposite party 1 and 2 are declared exparte on 06/07/2018. Opposite party 3 filed his version which is as follow.
According to the opposite party 3, the complainant made default of the payment that is why she failed to get the refund. It is also contended that he had not been in possession of the original deposit certificate as contented by the complainant. It is stated that he did not inform the complainant with regard to the refund of the deposit as claimed by the complainant. According to the opposite party 3 he did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and also contented that the complainant obtained the deposit certificate from other opposite parties. It is also contented that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per Appeal No.13394/15 appointed a Committee to deal all the matters relating to opposite party 1. It is also contented that all these details can be get from website www.scbi.gov.in and from 2 phone numbers (referred in version para 6). According to opposite party 3 he is only an agent of opposite party 1 and 2 as such he informed the details of the scheme to the customers. The opposite party 3 did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Therefore opposite party 3 prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us, we framed the following issues for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant she who
filed a proof affidavit and marked ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the copy of membership certificate issued by opposite party. On the other side opposite party 3 also filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as Dw1. Through Dw1 Ext.B1 and B2 are also marked. Ext. B1 is the printout of refund to PACL investors dtd.02/01/18 issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India. Ext.B2 is the news paper cutting (Malayala manorma dtd.27/08/2016 page no.5)
After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.
Point No.1 and 2
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
The case of the complainant is that she is a subscriber of opposite party 1 and opposite party2’s deposit scheme and she paid Rs.45,000/- to opposite party 1 and 2 in 45 monthly instalment. In order to substantiate her contention, she who filed a proof affidavit and marked ext.A1 in her favour. When we verified Ext.A1 we can see that the said deposit scheme started on 23/06/2011and would be expired on 23/12/2016. The term of the said scheme is 5 years and 6 months. As per the said scheme the complainant would have to paid a total amount of Rs.62,500/- to opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 at the time of expiry. As per this Ext.A1 the complainant proved that she is a subscriber of opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 with the above details. In this case opposite party 3 only raised any contention with regard to the contention of the complainant.
On 20/10/2018 the complainant produced a paper publication news related to the charge sheet against opposite party 1 and also produced the receipt dtd.29/03/2014 to show the monthly payment of Rs.1,000/- to PACL Ltd. (oppsotie party 1 and opposite party 2) This Forum suomoto marked the receipt as Ext.X1. In this case since opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are set exparte the evidence against opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are unchallenged. Opposite party 3 himself admitted that he is the agent of opooiste party 1 and opposite party 2 and introduced the scheme to complainant. When we referred the proof affidavit and complaint of this case, we can see that opposite party 3 paid Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as a temporary relief. When we evaluate the admission of receipt of the temporary relief made from the part of opposite party 3 we are not in a position to find any kind of deficiency or latches on the side of opposite party 3. Since the opposite party 3 is only an agent for this transaction. Thereby we are not in a possession to find any kind of latches or negligence on the part of opposite party 3. At the time of trial counsel appearing for the opposite party produced an Order in Civil Appeal No. 13301/15 of our Hon’ble Supreme Court related to this issue. If we go through the said Order it is to see that at present the subject matter of the case is pending before the Committee appointing by the Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Justice (Retired) Sri. R.M. Lodha. When we look into the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.13301/15 in the execution of the Order can be effected subject to the decision of the Committee referred above. In this case when we evaluating the evidence we can see that opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 committed grave deficiency in service against the complainant. It is to see that the complainant she who deposited her hard earned money Rs.45,000/- to opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 with an expectation of receiving more amount (including the interest promised) from opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 as per law and the terms and conditions of Ext.A1 (deposit receipt). The opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 clearly cheated the complainant and failed to pay any single rupee to the complainant. Moreover the said opposite parties illegally gained crores of rupees from customers all over India. Therefore we have no hesitation to find deficiency in service against opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 and exhonorate opposite party 3 from all charges. Opposite party 1 is the head office of opposite party 2 (branch)company. Therefore opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are jointly and severally liable to the complainant. Therefore point No.1 and 2 found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we pass following Orders.
- The opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.45,000/- along with an interest of 10% from the date of filing of this case ie. 24/05/2017.
- Opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with the cost of 3,000/- to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this Order.
- The execution of the above said relief 1and 2 are subject to the final decision of Lodha Committee appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13301/15.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2018.
Sd/-
Sri. P.SatheeshChandran Nair, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan Member Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits on the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of membership certificate dtd.23/06/2011
Exhibits on the side of opposite party
B1 : . Ext. B1 is the printout of refund to PACL investors dtd.02/01/18 issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India
B2 : Newspaper cutting (Malayala Manoram dtd.27/08/16 page no.5)
Court Ext.
C1 : Renewal subscription receipt S No. 1287815
By Order
Senior Superintendent