West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/546/2014

Sri Ananda Dutta, S/O - Late Sisir Dutta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poilan Park Development, Authority Ltd. Also Known as Pailan Group. - Opp.Party(s)

Sivaji Sankar Dhar.

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _546_ OF ___2014_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 12.11.2014_     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_31.3.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :         Dr. (Mrs.)  Shibani Chakraborty

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Sri Ananda Dutta,s/o late Sisir Duytta of Kamdahari Purba Para,

                                                P.S. Regent Park, Kolkata – 84.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                 :    Poilan Park Development Authority Ltd. also known as Pailan Group, 127, Kankulia Road, P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata – 29, having branch office at House No.Q-27, Baishnabghata Patuli Township, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 94.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            The  case of the complainant in short is that the complainant attracted with the advertisement published by the O.P in order to attract public investment from private individuals and invested in the O.P company by way of non-convertible Debentures (DB-24 Scheme) and in furtherance of his redemption the complainant bought total 100 debentures by way of two separate folios in all amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- being of Rs.65000/- each. The O.P was bound to redeem the value of the shares on August, 2014 but the O.P did not pay any single farthing towards the lawful claim of the complainant. Inspite of several requests followed by lawyer’s notice the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        O.Ps failed and neglected to pay the lawful claim of the complainant and hence the case.

            Inspite of good service of notice, the O.P fought shy of contesting the case and accordingly the case proceeded exparte .

            Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and /or unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            The moot allegation of the complainant is that he bought total 100 debentures by way of two separate folios in all amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- being 65000/- each and O.P is bound to redeem the value of the shares on August, 2014 but did not pay single farthing towards lawful claim of the complainant.

            We are aware regarding the two decisions ; one reported in 2011(4) CPR page 24 of Chattisgarh SCDRC Raipur and another is NCDRC New Delhi ,wherein Hon’ble NCDRC in disposing of Revision petition no.2821 of 2012 has observed that “ we find that the definition of “complainant/Consumer” “Consumer dispute” and “Service” as defined in section 2(1) of the C.P Act, 1986 ( as amended) do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute and in that form the aforesaid definition the complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved is not a consumer dispute. The complainant is engaged in trading of shares i.e. engaging speculative transaction. The NCDRC has held in Unit Trust of India Vs. Savitri Devi Agarwal (II) 2000 CPJ (NC) that the Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining compensation , speculative transaction or loss”.

            Accordingly in this dispute of the instant case regarding shares , complainant being a shareholder cannot be a consumer of O.P within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986 and as such the present complaint is, therefore, not legally maintainable under that Act.

            With that observation ,it is

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act filed by the complainant cannot be maintainable under the C.P Act since the transaction is speculative one but the complainant is at liberty to agitate the matter in appropriate Forum under the SEBI Act ,if he so desire.

In such circumstances we make no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be handed over the complainant for his information.

 

                                                            Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act filed by the complainant cannot be maintainable under the C.P Act since the transaction is speculative one but the complainant is at liberty to agitate the matter in appropriate Forum under the SEBI Act ,if he so desire.

In such circumstances we make no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be handed over the complainant for his information.

 

                                                            Member                                               President