SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The synopsis of the complaint case is that the Ops used to collect money from public by launching collective investment scheme which was inter alia fixed deposit scheme for different period and issue certificate of Fixed Deposit Receipt. The complainant invested a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-  with the OP No. 2 Co. vide Fixed Deposit Receipt  No.CTAM9200 in 04.09.2013 in a non cumulative scheme for a period of three years through the agent OP no. 1 in good faith. The scheme was of MIS nature and the complainant was promised to be paid Rs. 9375 as quarterly interest at the rate of 12.50%. the complainant received Rs. 12,000/-  and also Rs. 37,500/- as 4 months interest  but the company did not pay the principle amount including arrear interest of Rs. 75,000/-. The scheme matured on 04.09.2016. hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with prayer for a direction upon the Ops to pay her a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as principle amount and Rs. 75,000/- as due interest, further Rs. 59,375/-, totaling a sum of Rs. 4,34,375/- and other reliefs.

            Summons were issued upon all the OPs, the OP no. 1 appeared and contested the case by filing written version but the OP no. 2 & 3 did not turn up. So, the case is heard ex parte against the OP no. 2 & 3.

            The OP no.1 denied all the material allegations of the complaint and    claimed dismissal of the complaint. The OP nol.1 admitted to be an agent of the OPs Co.  He denied that he ever induced  the complainant to invest  the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the Co. but the complainant deposited the said amount through the OP no. 1 at her own volition. He deposited the amount to the OP no 2 and handed over the receipt to the complainant and also he acted as a media between the OP Co and the complainant in the matter of delivery of certificates etc. he asserted that the company is liable to return the amount with agreed interest and he has no active roll in the matter. The OP no.1 admits that the complainant is a helpless poor person and at her distress he helped her by giving Rs. 27,000/-  on condition that whenever she would get back the money from the Co. she would repay the same to the OP no.1.

The OPno1 has prayed for cost of Rs. 50,000/- for his defamation caused by filing this case by the complainant.  

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                   DECISION WITH REASONS.

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint, the written version of the OP. Perused the documents filed by the complainant. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides. We have considered all the above materials very carefully.

It appears that the main contention of the OP no, 1 is that he was an agent only and acted as a media for investment by the complainant   in the OP no. 2 company. The complainant deposited the amount through him only and he never allured or induced the complainant to invest in the OP Company. He prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.

 Perused the Fixed Deposit Receipt being Non Cumulative No. CTAM 9200, signed by Santanu Bhattacharya, the Director of the OP Co. the Bonus Certificate dated 07.10.2016 signed by the same person and four quarterly receipts issued by the OP Co. in favour of the complainant allotting Rs. 9375/- each. All these documents together prove that the investment of the complainant with the OP Co. was genuine. In the Fixed deposit certificate the accrued Redemption value has been shown as Rs. 3,00,000/- after a period of three years and the date of redemption is 04.09.2016.  The application amount is also found Rs. 3,00,000/-. So, the Ops are certainly liable to return the said money with interest as prayed by the complainant.

In the written version filed by the OP no. 1 he admits himself to be an agent.

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant and OP no.1 elaborately placed argument before this Forum.

Ld advocate for the complainant relied on a decision reported in 2017 (2) CPR 522(NC) wherein it has been held that “It is the duty of the broker to help the complainant to get her money back when time of maturity comes”.

We have carefully perused the decision of reference. In that case broker admitted  that they were acting as broker for OP and have got the proposal form filled as well as accepted money from the complainant and it was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission  that broker should help the complainant to get her money back when time of maturity comes and has been pleased to dismiss the Revisional petition of the broker with cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

Referring this decision the ld Advocate for the complainant  argued that the complainant is entitled to get the relief  from the Ops as the investment of the complainant with the OP  Co, through the OP no.1 is sufficiently proved.

At the time of argument the ld advocate for the complainant submitted that the agent should have helped the complainant/investor to return his money but here the OP no. 1 has not acted his role.

We have examined the entire materials and have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  It may be stated that the OP no. 2 & 3  with whom the money had been  invested by the complainant did not appear before this Forum  to contest the case.  The case against the OP no. 2 & 3 proceeded ex parte. The complainant obtained the receipts from the OP No.1  issued by the OP Company, but it appears in the instant case that the OP no. 1 did not help the complainant to get return of the maturity amount from the OP no. 2  & 3 nor the complainant got return of the money. 

Based on the discussion above, we are of the view that the OP no. 1, 2 and 3   are  jointly and severally  liable  for return of the redemption  amount to the complainant with agreed interest along with further amount of Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost and compensation.

In this case the OP no.1 has taken a plea that he gave Rs. 27,000/- to the complainant at the time of her distress with condition for repayment of the same whenever the maturity amount from the Co. will be available to her. A hand written receipt has been filed by the OP no1 showing receipt of Rs. 27,000/- by the complainant on three different dates. But the maturity amount has not been available to the complainant. The complainant also did not dispute this defense of the OP no. 1. The complainant should return the said amount to the OP no.1 on getting the decretal amount.

Both the points are answered accordingly.   

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/176 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No 1 and ex parte against the OPs Nos. 2 and 3.

The OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- only as redemption amount of  investment  with due interest as per agreed rate and further amount of Rs. 5000/-towards compensation and litigation cost within one month from the date of this order, in default the OPs will be liable to pay 9% interest per annum on the awarded amount till its full satisfaction.  The complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution as per provision of the C P Act, 1986 if the above order is not complied with by the stipulated time.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.