Date of filing : 02.02.2018
Judgment : Dt.09.09.2020
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Anwar Molla against Opposite Parties (referred as OP hereinafter) Rahul Hi Rise Ltd. represented by Rahul Banerjee 2. Diptendu Banerjee 3. Dipankar Gupta.
Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased 1000 Redeemable Debentures from the OP Company and the said Company issued Redeemable Debentures being Folio No.9/11/33080, vide allotment letter No.120739, Distinctive No.(s) from 17204445/17205445, under Scheme SD, against application No.RHL/KOL/120741/0067 On 24.09.2011 and as per said letter of allotment the Complainant was entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- on the date of Redemption i.e. on 24.09.2014. The Complainant has stated that on receiving request from the end of the Complainant to release redemption value the OP issued a cheque bearing No.217098 drawn on AXIS Bank, Basirhat Branch amounting Rs.1,60,000/- but on deposition said cheque was dishonoured by the banker of the complainant and, thereafter, the Complainant on several times requested the OPs to release the redemption value even he went to the Head Office of OP to register his complaint but the OP took dilatory tactics and finding no other way, the Complainant sent legal notice dt.19.12.2017 but that yielded no fruitful result and, therefore, being aggrieved the Complainant by filing the instant petition prayed for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.1,60,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay cost.
The Complainant annexed letter of allotment, photocopy of cheque bearing No.217098, photocopy of Bank Account, letter issued by the Complainant to the OP dt.19.12.2017.
The OPs have contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia that the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and, moreover, the OPs are not liable to pay the interest amount. The OP has further stated that no cheque has been issued from the end of the OP. Moreover, the Complainant never approached the OP claiming disbursement of the amount and as such no cause of action at all arose against the OP and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Complainant by adducing evidence reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint. The OP cross-examined the Complainant by filing questionnaire and the Complainant filed reply.
The OP adduced evidence stating that debentures are long term loan provided by the investors to the Company and, moreover any dispute relating to the debentures can only be dealt by Registrar of Companies or the National Company Law Tribunal. The OP has further stated that the OPs are restrained by the order of the Hon’ble High Court to sell or transfer of the property and further all the accounts of the OP No.1 have been frozen.
The Complainant filed questionnaire against evidence of OP No.1 and the OP filed reply.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant advanced argument.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP No.1 submits that the case is not maintainable and places reliance upon the decision dt.24.7.2018 of Hon’ble SCDRC, WB[Sri Ananda Dutta VS Poilan Park Development].
Points for determinations:
- Whether the case is maintainable.
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 : - In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the OP raised the issue of non-maintainability of this case before this Forum and in support of his contention cited a decision passed by Hon’ble SCDRC, W.B. in Sri Ananda Dutta VS Poilan Park Development. The said decision, however, is not applicable to the instant case since the same is of different context as the Complainant therein alleged non-payment of redemption value. To determine that point, we have taken into consideration the decision passed by Hon’ble SCDRC West Bengal on 28.11.2008 in FA/08/43 [Rose Valley Group of Companies VS Smt. Prova Mandal], while dealing an appeal filed by the debenture issuing authority in respect of a consumer complaint regarding delayed payment of maturity amount of the redemption value of the debentures, wherein their Lordships pleased to hold “……….we find there is substance in the contention of the respondent that when the Complainant obtained debentures investing her own money with the OP No.1 company the agreement was that the maturity amount is to be paid by OP No.1 to the Complainant on maturity of debentures. Therefore, it does not matter as to whether the debentures are goods within the Consumer Protection Act, there being deficiency in service, the complaint is maintainable.”
In the light of the discussion made by the Hon’ble SCDRC, W.B. we also hold that the instant case is maintainable.
Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point Nos.2 & 3
Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition.
The Complainant has alleged that he purchased 1000 nos. of Redeemable Debentures from the OP Company and on the date of redemption i.e. on 24.09.2014 the OP Company handed over the Redemption value by cheque but on presentation of said cheque for crediting the said amount to the account of the Complainant the cheque was dishonoured and returned by the banker of the complainant. The OPs themselves have admitted that “West Bengal Government closed and stopped account transactions relating business on and from January 2014”. It is therefore evident that inspite of knowing well that their Bank A/c has been freezed the OP issued a cheque in favour of the Complainant towards disbursement of redemption value in respect of debentures issued by them, which amounts to deficiency in service and, therefore, we are of opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get relief regarding payment of redemption value. As regards compensation, we do not find any ground to allow such prayer.
However, the OP compelled the Complainant to file the instant case and, therefore, they are liable to pay litigation cost.
Point Nos.2 & 3 are decided accordingly.
Hence
ordered
That CC/52/2018 is allowed on contest with cost. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- within two months from the date of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within above mentioned period. Failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation.
