DATE OF FILING : 14-11-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 18-08-2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13-01-2016.
Probir Kumar Aich,
son of Maniklal Aich,
residing at 73/5/2, Dakshin Buxarah 1st Bye Lane, P.S. Jagacha,
District Howrah,
PIN 711109. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. PAILAN PARK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LTD.,
being represented by its
Director,
having its registered office at 127, Kankulia Road,
Kolkata 700029.
2. Barun Banerjee,
son of late Ramasankar Banerjee,
residing at 260/1, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711102……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, namely Probir Kumar Aich, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. no. 1 to refund Rs. 6,90,000/- along with interest till realization, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant madeinvestmentsin the scheme of Debenture –DB-12 of o.p. company. The o.p. 1issued certificates vide Annexures in favour of the complainant which areas follows :
Shri Probir Kumar Aich Debenture Certificate nos. DB 01376498,
DB 01376536 & DB01376518.
3. O.P. no. 1 promised to pay the maturity amounts of three bond certificates on the due dates to the complainant but since November, 2013 they did not care to pay the same showing utter negligence towards the complainant. Complainant repeatedly went to the office of o.ps but on different pleas they have returned the complainant without giving his maturity benefit. It is further stated by the complainant that due to this non action and gross negligence on the part of the o.ps., complainant has been compelled to face tremendous problem due to scarcity of money with which he was supposed to meet his day to day expenditure, medical expenditure, children’s education etc. which are really at stake. And when complainant went to the office of the o.ps. on 31-03-2014, he was again refused by the o.ps. So, finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notice was served. O.ps. neither appeared nor filed any written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainant and noted its contents. Complainant invested Rs. 6,00,000/- in total in the o.ps. company. It is a fact that o.ps. have failed to pay the monthly interest since November, 2013 for which complainant felt tremendous monetary problem. Because, people invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. O.p1. has miserably failed to keep his promise which they made on the face of the certificates issued by them in favour of complainant. O.P2 acted only as an agent of O.P1. so, for every act of o.p.2, o.p1 is liable as principal. For o.p1’s gross negligence in discharging duties, complainant had to suffer a lot for the crying need of money. Sacrificing many present enjoyments involving monetary expenditure, complainant made those investments foreseeing their future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.p1’s severe negligence, complainant is, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. Moreover, the o.p.1 has not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.p1. has miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed against o.p1 and dismissed against o.p2. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 591 of 2014 ( HDF 591 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P1 and dismissed against o.p2 without cost.
That the O.P.1 is directed to pay the maturity amount of 6,90,000/- to the complainant in terms of the certificates in question within one month from this order i.d., @ 8% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire amount till actual payment.
The complainant do get an award of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000 as litigation cost and o.p. is directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 8% p.a. till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
