Date of Filing: 18.04.2017 Date of Final Order: 18.01.2018
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member
The Complainant, Smt. Chitra Dey Biswas has filed the present case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for issuing direction upon the O.Ps to return back the policy amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony, unnecessary harassment, financial loss also Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- with other relief.
Briefly stated the facts of the case can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant being motivated by alluring proposal made by the O.P. No.1 invested her hard earned money to one Financial Agency i.e. O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 assured that he will take total responsibility towards secured payment of such investment @ Rs.6,000/- per month. The Complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- on 11.02.2011 and the O.P. No.1 handed over two certificates under caption certificate of property in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant did not get any amount of interest from the O.P Company even after assurance given by the O.P. No.1. Thereafter the O.P. No.2 handed over a pass book bearing No. A/C CBH 001808050 with some entries showing some purported deposit of Rs. 6000/- per month commencing from 16.03.2011 to 29.02.2012. After getting the said pass book the complainant became anxious and sought for explanation to the O.P. No.1 about the existence of the said Company. By not giving any plausible explanation the O.P. No.1 bound to issue an Angikarpatra being pressurized by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice on 17.12.2013 but no positive result came out for which the Complainant lodged an FIR with the Kotwali P.S. against the O.P. No.1 and a case U/S 406/402 I.P.C. is pending before the court of law. During the pendency of the case the O.P. No.1 approached for settlement but failed. The Complainant again served another notice to the O.P. No.1 for refunding the deposited amount but to no good.
Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case against the O.Ps seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the present case the notice upon O.P. No. 1 has been duly served but the notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has not been served for which the complainant published a notice in the name of O.P. No. 2 in a daily news paper. None appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 as such, this case proceeded with ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.
The O.P. No.1 in its turn has filed W/V and contested the case contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law. This O.P. made denial of some specific allegations against him saves and except the statements which are matters of record.
The prime contention of this O.P. is that he is not an agent of the O.P. No. 2 and the Complainant is failed to produce any documents in this regard. The O.P. No. 1 himself is a depositor and also invested huge amount to the O.P. No. 2 Company, the documents in this connection has been marked as Annexure-A. The O.P No.1 never tried to motivate the Complainant to invest money to the O.P. No. 2 and it is totally false that he assured the Complainant to take entire responsibility of such investment.
This answering O.P further contented that the Complainant did not deposit any amount to him. The O.P. No.1 is one of the depositors like the Complainant and he came to know that the Complainant deposited 3 lakhs to the O.P. No.2 Company. This O.P also pleaded that after that the Complainant further deposited certain amount to the O.P. No.2 company in the name of her daughter. This O.P specifically denied that he received any amount from the Complainant for which no question arise to hand over two certificates as to the deposit with the O.P. No.2 Company. It has been also denied by this O.P that the Complainant made investment relying upon the assurance of this O.P because the O.P. No.1 did not give any assurance on behalf of the O.P. No.2 more so he is also an investor to the O.P. No.2. Further pleading of this O.P is that he did not issue any Angikarpatra in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant once proposed to the O.P. No. 1 for filing a joint complaint for getting the invested amount as both are the depositor of the O.P. No. 2. On good faith the O.P. No. 1 put his signature in a blank paper in presence of his wife and strongly denied that he ever issued any Angikarpatra as stated by the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 after receiving the legal notice has given a reply denying all material allegations on 09.01.2014 which is marked as Annexure-B. Further averment is that, neither the Complainant approached this O.P. for settlement nor this O.P. assured to refund the amount on 25.12.2015, 08.04.2016 &01.02.2016. The above dates have been made for the purpose of this case. The fact is that the O.P. No. 1 is also an investor to the O.P. Company and by not getting any returns he made a written complaint before the Ld. CJM, Cooch Behar against the O.P. No. 2 Company and its officials and a G.R. case No.710/2014 is pending before the Court of Ld. CJM, Cooch Behar which is marked as Annexure –C.
By narrating his version this O.P. prayed for dismissal of this case with cost as the present case is concocted and has been filed to harass the O.P. No. 1.
In the light of the contention of the parties, the following moot points came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of the parties. Perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Complainant and the O.P. No.1 at a length. Perused and considered also the original documents filed by the parties.
Point No.1.
The Complainant alleged that she procured certificates against investment of Rs.3,00,000/- from the O.P. No.1 who is an Agent of the O.P. No.2 and the he O.P. No. 2 issued Certificate of Property by receiving certain amount from the complainant with assurance to return the same with huge interest. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps so established from the record, we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps u/s 2(1)(d)of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The alleged cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Thus, as per section 11 of C.P. Act, 1986 this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit. Hence, this Forum also has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and for the sake of brevity.
It is the case of the Complainant is that he deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- to the O.P. 2 Company through its agent, the O.P. NO. 1 for a period of 47 months but after expiry of tentative period she did not get any interest/Deposited Amount as per the terms & conditions of the said investment.
It is the case of the O.P. No. 1 that he is not an agent of the O.P. No.2 rather he himself also has been deposited huge amount to the O.P. No.2 Company and being cheated he lodged an FIR and a case U/S G.R. case No.710/2014 is pending before the Court of Ld. CJM, Cooch Behar.
It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant invested the amount to the O.P. No. 2 Company but he did not take any step against the Directors or other officials whose signature is glaring on the certificate issued in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant only concentrates on the Agent of the Company and allegedly stated in her complaint as well as in Evidence that the O.P. No.1 took money from her but did not return the invested amount even after issuance an Angikarpatra.
It is pertinent to mention that an Agent is not an integral part of the Company and has no authority to refund the invested/maturity amount on behalf of the Company. Onus lies upon the Branch Manager, Director, proprietor of the Company to refund the money so deposited by the Complainant in the O.P. Company. The Debenture Certificate (Annexure-F) clearly goes to show that the Head Office Of the Weird Infrastructures Corporation Limited is situated in Allahabad, U.P. but the Complainant did not make the head Office or any of the Directors, officials of the Weird Infrastructures Corporation Limited as party/parties.
Annexure-E transpires that one Certificate of Property has been issued by Weird Industries Limited dated 11.03.11 and its Head Office situated at Howrah, Dasnagar not by Weird Infrastructures Corporation Limited, Allahabad. The Complainant has filed the present case against the Wired Industries limited and its agent not against the director, officials of the said Company or against Director, Authorised Signatory of Weird Infrastructures Corporation Limited who issued Debenture Certificate of Rs.1,00,000/-.
From the documents made available in the record, it appears that the Complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- to the O.P. No.2 Company not Rs.3,00,000/- but she claimed for refunding of Rs. 3,00,000/- as invested amount. That being the position we constrained to hold that the Complainant did not come before this Forum in clean hand. Moreover, it appears that the Complainant deposited 1,00,000/- to the O.P.No.2 Company on 11.03.2011 and by not getting maturity amount served a legal notice on 17.12.2013. Thereafter, the Complainant sat idle for a long period and ultimately served another legal notice on 23.02.17. During that period the Complainant neither took any step against the O.Ps nor filed any case before this Forum. The Complainant has filed this case on 18.04.2017.
Be that as it may, on the foregoing discussion it is established that the complainant did not file the present case properly; he filed the case by omitting the WEIRD INFRASTRUCTURES CORPORATION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD and its Directors as parties. The Complainant has not made the Director of the O.P.No.2 as a party, the reason best known to her. Thus, we are of the opinion that the present case is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid reasons. The Complainant may take shelter of Civil court against the O.Ps for realisation of the amount as mentioned in the so called undertaking given by the O.P. No.1.
Thus, the complaint fails.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
The present Case No. CC/48/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 without cost and dismissed in ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 without cost.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules. The copy of this order also be available in the following website :
confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
