DATE OF FILING : 08.02.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 21.03.2016.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.03.2017.
1. Santanu Rail,
son of Haren Rail,
residing at village Bar Hallyan, ( Enayetpur ),
P.O. Hallyan, P.S. Bagnan,
District Howrah,
PIN 711312.
2. Barnali Ray,
wife of Shyamal Ray,
residing at village Narayanpur, P.O. Amardaha, P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah.
3. Sarbani Ray,
wife of Nirmal Ray,
residing at village Narayanpur, P.O. Amardaha,
P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah.
4. Mamata Shee,
wife of Barun Shee,
residing at village & P.O. Sasati, P.O. Shyampur,
District Howrah.
5. Jharna Bera,
wife of Pintu Bera,
residing at village Narayanpur, P.O. Amardaha,
P.S. Shyampur, District Howrah.
6. Lakshmi Bhowmick,
wife of Sukumar Bhowmick,
residing at village Enayetpur, P.O. Hallyan,
P.S. Bagnan, District Howrah.
7. Archana Pramanick,
wife of Shyama Prasad Pramanick,
residing at village Kamalpur, P.O. Radapur, P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah.
8. Bimal Patra,
son of Arjun Patra,
residing at village & P.O. Naul,
P.S. Shyampur, District Howrah.
9. Manika Samanta,
wife of Kartik Samanta,
residing at village Belesounta, P.O. Amardaha,
P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah.
10. Moumita Ray,
wife of Sukdev Ray,
residing at village Mirjapur, P.O. Magkalyan,
District Howrah. …………….. ……………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainments Ltd.,
having its registered office at Sector V,
Godrej Water Side,
office no. 201 & 202 Tower 1, 2nd floor,
Plot no. 5, Block DP, Salt Lake,
Kolkata 700091,
having its branch office at village + P.O. + P.S. Bagnan,
District Howrah,
PIN 711303. ………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
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
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners, Santanu Rail and nine others praying for directing the o.p., Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainments Ltd., to pay the complainants their principal amount being the actual investment plus interest till realization or the maturity amount + interest till realization as applicable and to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are investors, who invested their money in fixed deposit and recurring deposit schemes of the o.p. company which is incorporated under the Company’s Act, 1956. The petitioner no. 1 invested in ten fixed deposit schemes out of which two were matured in the year 2016 and the rest four each were to mature in 2018 & 2019 respectively and the actual investment made by the petitioner was around Rs. 1.7 lakhs. The petitioner no. 2 invested Rs. 20,000/- on 15.12.2012 in the fixed deposit scheme and the scheme will be matured on 15.3.2018. The petitioner no. 3 made investment in two fixed deposit schemes out of which one got matured on 20.4.2016 and the other will be matured on 21.2.2024. The petitioner no. 4 made investment in one fixed deposit scheme and one recurring deposit scheme, both will be matured on 11.7.2018 & 11.9.2017 respectively. The petitioner no. 5 invested in two F.D. Schemes out of which one got matured on 20.4.2016 and the other is to mature on 15.10.2017. The petitioner no. 6 invested Rs. 17,000/- in one F.D. only and the same got matured on 20.4.2016. The petitioner no. 7 invested Rs. 10,630/- and Rs. 10,000/- in F.D. Schemes and Rs. 2,800/- in one R.D. scheme and they are to mature on 20.6.2018, 30.3.2017 and 11.9.2017 respectively. The o.p. no. 8 invested in F.D. amounting to Rs. 10,000/- in one R.D. amounting to Rs. 6,630/- with maturity date 22.12.2018, 26.11.2015 respectively. The o.p. nos. 9 & 10 invested Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,400/- in F.D. and R.D. schemes respectively with maturity date on 30.6.2018 and 26.04.2016 respectively. The petitioners stopped payment to the o.p. as they did not get any single furthering from the o.p. even after maturity date of schemes and also a question mark put on the o.p. regarding their status. When they approached the o.p. then they stated that due to unavoidable circumstances they are unable to pay the maturity benefits but they would make monthly installments soon which they already stopped. So the petitioners filed this case praying for repayment of a sum of Rs. 3,31,228/- with interest plus payment of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the case is not maintainable and the petitioners have no cause of action and they filed this case suppressing all material facts and also the case is barred by limitation. They further submitted that 2500 bank accounts of the company have been freezed by the Enforcement Directorate, Economic Offence Wing, resulting which the company is unable to make payment for discharging their liability. The Government of West Bengal also imposed an embargo on the company towards sale of its property. Further, the company filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court to sell the assets and to pay the investors. Further, in the instant case also the petitioners have not paid all the installments. Thus the policies being prematured, the petitioners cannot get the relief as prayed for and so the case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of their case the petitioners filed affidavit as well as the certificates of all the petitioners showing the certificate number of the recurring deposit account and the date of commencement of the account and the number of installments paid in the accounts and the actual payment made and also the date of maturity and the maturity amount proving the fact that they purchased the certificate and went on depositing the installments. It is true that except some petitioners the certificates of all other petitioners are not matured and also the petitioners after making partial payment stopped payment because maturity amount was not paid to them in other cases and the o.p. fleeing away from office dissatisfying the petitioner who got frustrated and realized that the o.p. took advantage and practiced unfair trade. There is no denial from the o.p. company that they have not received the installments from the petitioners and they have not issued the certificate even if all the policies are matured except a few. But the o.p. could not produce any document that the petitioners are not entitled to the deposited sum with interest as they stopped making payment in case of matured policies. Rather the petitioners deposited their hard-earned money before the o.p. company and the turm-oil situation compelled the petitioner to stop payment as the o.p. company closed their offices and almost all the directors, managing directors are taken into custody by the Courts on the prayer of the Enforcement Directorate, Economic Offence Wing, as well as Central Bureau of Investigation.
In view of above discussion and findings thisforum finds that there is sufficient evidence that the petitioners deposited their hard-earned money in the recurring deposit scheme of the o.p. company and they are entitled to get back their actual deposit amount with interest till realization in the case of the policies which are already matured and in the case where the policies are not matured the petitioners are entitled to the deposited amount alsowith interest @ 9% p.a.till realization.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 54 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
The petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and the O.P. company is directed to pay the principal amount + interest till realization @ 9% p.a. in the cases where the policies are immatured and in case of matured policy the petitioners are entitled to the maturity amount + interest @ 9% p.a. till realization within 30 days from the date of this order.
The petitioners are also entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and the o.p. company is directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. company is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- would go to the petitioners as litigation costs and yet Rs. 10,000/- would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this District Forum within 30 days from the date of this order.
The petitioners are at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
