::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.71/2016.
Date of filing:17.09.2016.
Date of disposal: 24.02.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Sri Vishwanath S/o Bhimagonda Mehtre,
Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rakshal (K) Kushnoor (Thana)
Tq: Aurad Dist: Bidar.
2. Mahadev S/o Vishwanath Mehtre,
Age:Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Rakshal (K) Kushnoor (Thana)
Tq: Aurad Dist: Bidar.
(By Smt.Balika S.Patil, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) Sri. Raja S/o Ganpathrao Gaikwad, The
Managing Director of Jagruti Agro Foods & Infra
Projects LLP, Reg, Gat No.21/1, Pratapnagar,
Takali Road, Pandharpur Solapur District.(MS).
2). Sri. Raja S/o Ganpathrao Gaikwad, The
Managing Director of Jagruti Agro Foods & Infra
Projects LLP, Branch Office, Mothi Bazar, Near
Police Station, Behind Patil Fertilizer, Gandhi
Gunj, Bidar.
( Exparte.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainants have approached this Forum by filing a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponents alleging deficiency of service and unethical trade practices.
The allegations in the complaints in a nut-shell are as follows:-
1. That, the opponent company having branch office at Bidar and registered office at Pandharpur, Solapur District, Maharastra State was engrossed in sheep/goat rearing business and was campaigning in the market wooing the public to invest money in such business through its officers and field agents.
2. That, the complainants allured by the canvassment of such officials and the pamphlet of the O.P. company (copy as Ex.P.1) invested sums as follows:
Complainant No.1. Vishwanath S/o Bhimagonda Mehter Rs.1,25,000/-.
Complainant No.2. Mahadev S/o Vishwananth Mehtre Rs.5,000/-. As per the offer of the O.P. The complainants were supposed to get back one goat each of 10Kg.weight at the end of one term i.e., 14 months. The total scheme was for a period of 70 months. It is further evident from the document Ex.P.3 & 5 that, the investor had the option of getting out of the scheme called LLP by receiving a sum stipulated.
3. The complainants further allege that, after the first term period of 14 months, the O.P. company failed to keep its commitment of returning the goat promised and went on making defaults in paying the subsequent usufructs as well, where fore a legal notice EX.P.6 was got issued at their behest. Inspite of receiving the legal notice, the O.P. company never acted upon it.
4. It is further in the averments of the complainants that, the O.P. company, without the formers consent or approval has converted the invested amount to share capital of the company for which the present complaint.
5. The notices sent to the opponents have been returned with postal endorsements unclaimed/left for which substituted service by paper publication was permitted vide orders date.23.01.2017 and the concerned news papers “Vijaya Karnataka” and “Dainik Samna” was submitted on 28.02.2017. (Kept in CC.No.27/2016).
6. The opponents have opted not to participate in the proceedings and hence have been placed exparte. Though the complainants counsel had filed a memo to club all seventeen cases, owing to variance of deposits we decide to deal with each case individually.
7. The complainant has submitted documents as noted at the end of this order. They have further filed evidence affidavit and written arguments in furtherance of his case. In the affidavit at Para 12 though it is mentioned that, a criminal case vide Cr.No.100/2015 alleging offences u/s 420, 468,470,471 of I.P.C. is filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Cum J.M.F.C. Aurad-B. No such evidence is led before us. However, we are not concerned about the criminal trial.
8. In the absence of the participation of the opponents, we have to believe in the deliberations and evidences submitted by the complainant and unhesitantly hold that, the opponents have resorted to deficiency of service 2(1)(g) and unethical trade practice 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and proceed to pass the following:-
::ORDER::
- The complaint is allowed.
- The opponents are jointly and severally directed to refund the invested sum along with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of receipt of the fund till realisation;
- The opponents are further jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation as claimed in the complaint.
- Acting u/s 14(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, we direct the opponents to discontinue unfair trade practices as alleged by the complainant and discussed supra;
- Acting further u/s 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we direct the opponents to pay a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- to the consumer legal aid account of this forum.
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 24th day of Feburary 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- Copy of the pamphlet of the opponents.
- Ex.P.2– Capital contribution receipt of opponents date:27.10.2014
(original). - Ex.P.3- Partnership admission letter date: 08.11.2014 (original).
- Ex.P.4- Capital contribution receipt of opponents date:11.10.2014
(original). - Ex.P.5- Partnership admission letter date: 18.10.2014 (original).
- Ex.P.6- Office copy of legal notice.
- Ex.P.7- Postal receipt of above (original).
Document produced by the Opponent.
–Nil-
Witnesses examined.
Complainant.
- Sri. Vishwanath S/o Bhimagonda Mehtre complainant.
Opponnets.
-Nil-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
