(Passed on 6/5/2024)

Per Mr. Sachin Vinodkumar Jaiswal, Hon’ble Member

1. The complainant had filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under.

That the complainant is resident of Chandrapur and his engaged in FMCG business. The complainant is having shop where he performs business of selling of electronic goods. The complainant is having good repute in the society at Chandrapur. The OP No. 1 is the Pratishtha Mahabachat Nidhi Ltd. and OP Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners and collection agents of OP No. 1. The OP No. 3 had approached the complainant and shown him rosy picture about the recurring account and its benefits with the OP No. 1. The complainant looking him to the future needs of his business and family and on the forceful request of OP No. 3 had opened the recurring account bearing No. 999A/238 with OP Nos. 1 to 3 on 30/06/2018 and started depositing Rs. 2,000/-per day.

3. It is further submitted by the complainant that the Ops had assured that recurring deposit account would get good return on the amount deposited by way of interest to the complainant and the  complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount as and when he wants to do the same.
4. The complainant was regularly deposited Rs. 2,000/- per day and the OP No. 3 was coming to complainant and collecting amount on daily basis. The complainant from the date of opening of account till 29/06/2018  was deposited Rs. 1500/- per day with the OP and the total deposited amount with the OP was Rs. 1,41,000/-. The complainant read in newspaper about the fraud and economic offence  committed by the Ops and therefore immediately filed the form for withdrawal and submitted  it with the Ops but even after the expiry of more than a months time, complainant did not get the withdrawal. The complainant approached to the office of the Ops and they met to OP No. 2 and request to pay the deposited amount with assured interest to the complainant. The OP No. 2 assured that within few days, the amount deposited by the complainant in his account  would be refunded to the complainant along with interest. When the complainant did not get any response from the OPs, since long, the complainant enquired about the OPs and came to know that the OP No. 1 had been arrested by Police for offence under cheating   and the institution of the OP Pratishtha Mahabachat Nidhi Ltd. had been closed.
5. Even after the closing of institution, the OP Nos. 2 and 3 continuously receiving amount from the complainant and keeping it with themselves. The act of the OP Nos. 1 to 3 amounts to unfair trade practice and not allowing the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount from his account, amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.
6. The complainant after coming to know about  the closing of the OP No. 1/Institution,  sent legal notice to the OP seeking refund of the amount and getting no response from the OP, filed the present complaint seeking refund of amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- with 18 percent interest per annum and compensation under different types.
7. The Commission issued notices to the OP Nos. 1 to 3. The OP No. 1 had been served through paper publication dated 14/11/2011 and proceeded exparte for non appearance. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and filed their reply denying all the allegations made against them  by the complainant. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 specifically submitted that it is the OP No. 2 who had filed the Police complaint against the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 had not only duped the complainant but also cheated the OP Nos. 2 and 3 by not paying the salary and Commission to the OP Nos. 2 and 3. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 further submitted that they had filed list of amount deposited by the OP Nos. 2 and 3 with OP No. 1  which has to be paid by the OP No. 1 to the customers. The P Nos. 2 and 3 specifically submitted that they  were only the employees and collection agents of OP No. 1 and they were also victimized by OP No. 1. It is further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of OP Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore his complaint against OP Nos. 2 and 3 not tenable and the present Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertained this complaint against them and the complaint should be dismissed against the OP Nos. 2 and 3 with exemplary cost.

REASONING

8. The complainant filed ‘Dainik Thev Passbook’ for his account bearing No. 999A/238 and it shows that the complainant has deposited Rs. 1,41,000/- with the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 and that amount had been paid by the OP to the complainant even after the request of the complainant. The complainant further submits that the OP Nos. 2 and 3 were the persons taking the money from the complainant and the wrong doers are trying to show them as the victims only by filing the Police complaint against the OP No. 1. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be escaped from the liability only because they had filed the Police complaint against the OP No. 1. The complainant further requested that the complaint may be allowed against all the Ops for refraining the complainant  from his hard earned money deposited with the OP and it amounts to unfair trade practice. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 submits that they  were also the victims of the act of the OP No. 1 and they are only the employees  and collection agents of the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 is the sole karta of the organization and OP Nos. 2 and 3 had no role to play  for not returning the deposited amount to the complainant. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 further submits that even salaries  and commission  were due against  the OP No. 1 and the OP Nos. 2 and 3 are not personally duped the complainant. The Commission did not find any force in the submissions of the OP Nos. 2 and 3.
9. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 are not in the principle to agent relationship  but were in  principle to principle relationship and were responsible for their acts individually. After going through the record and documents filed and arguments extended, the Commission pass following orders.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund  the amount of Rs. 1,41,000/- deposited by the complainant with 12 percent interest from the date of last deposited i.e. 30/09/2018 till realization.
3. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and  Rs. 25,000/- for cost of litigation.
4. Copy of order be supplied to all parties, free of cost.