Date of Filing: 29/09/2022

Date of Judgement: 21/11/2024

Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member

The Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 are partners of the Firm namely Premiere Wealth Management Services herein and OP No.3 is a Company, Premiere Wealth Management Services Pvt. Ltd having registered office at 4A/1, Motilal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700029 having branch office at 57/3M/1 N S C Bose Road, Kolkata 700 093/.

That the complainant/petitioner stated that the OPs had promised to return of the Principal sum invested and with periodical return on investment on the said sum of money to be transferred by the complainant/petitioner to the Account of Complainant.

That the complainant/petitioner and OP No.1 were known to each other since before the month of January 2021 when onwards the OP No.1 started cheating the complainant/petitioner with all his dishonest and criminal intent to misappropriate the assets of the complainant/petitioner. The OP No.1 by his deceptive, misrepresentative, coercive fraudulent and dishonest acts, conducts, manner and behaviors towards the complainant/petitioner and convinced the complainant.

The opposite parties have convinced that he will not only get return the principal money but shall also get periodic return on his said principal investment if the complainant/petitioner invests his savings with the OPs.

Whereas through the actions of the Opposite Parties and in the process allured the complainant/petitioner to make payment of the following sums of his money as principal investments in the following manner and on the following dates :

• Rs.4,56,000/- only towards  OP No.2 Firm through OP No.1 on 20.01.2021  against OP No.1
• Rs.10,00,000/- towards OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 22.02.2021
• Rs.12,00,000/- towards OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 23.02.2021

Total of Rs. 26,56,000/-.

That the common fraudulent promise made by the OP No.1,in each of the aforesaid 3 investment documents wereaccepted bypremiere wealth management services Pvt. Ltd, the OP No.3 and OP No.2.

And  it was promised  that  company shall pay return on such investment at the rate of 10.99% for such number of days  i.e 365  days  and the said amount  of return on investment shall to the credit  the bank account of the complainant/petitioner with ICICI Bank.

It was mentioned that no partial /premature withdrawal is allowed before 365 days and the maximum period of contract cannot exceed 1095 days.

The Premiere Wealth Management Services Pvt. Ltd is liable for the entire profit or loss on the investment amount and is also liable to pay the above mentioned rate of interestalong with invested capital at the end of the due term i.e. 365 days to 1095 days.

That the complainant/petitioner waited for 365 days from the inception of suchinvestments and finding nothing at all has been credited to his bank account as promised by OPSin writing as aforesaid. The complainant contacted the OPSin person and even via e-mailsto demand withdrawal of all his principal sum/ amountof investments and to demand return on his said investments for 365 days for each of his investments. The complainant/petitioner also made a request to close all his investments made through the OPs.

On 01.03.2022, the complainant/petitioner received a mail from the OP No.2 to the effect that one of the Principal Investment of the complainant/petitioner to the extent of Rs.10 lacs that expired on 24.02.2022 would be returned as per the request of the complainant/petitioner and the same would be credited to the said bank account of the complainant/petitioner held with ICICI Bank.

On 11.04.2022 the complainant/petitioner received a sum of Rs.50,346/- towards returns on principal investment and again on 11.04.2022 he received a sum of Rs.50,216/- towards return on principal investment.

On 30.04.2022 the complainant/petitioner received a sum of Rs.50,189/- towards returns on principal investment and again on 30.04.2022 he received a sum of Rs.50,277/- towards return on principal investment.

But  aforesaid each of the said three principal sum investment carried a return on investment @10.99% per annum and the period of each set of investment was for 365 days.

Accordingly, first set of investment for Rs.4,56,000/- on and from 21.01.2021 carried along with a promise of return on investment after 365 days.Therefore after completion of 365 days the complainant/petitioner was assured by the OPs of a sum of Rs.50,114/-towards return on such principal investment.

Accordingly, second set of investment for Rs.10,00,000/- on and from 23.02.2021 carried along with a promise of return on investment after 365 days .Therefore after completion of 365 days the complainant/petitioner was assured by the OPs of a sum of Rs.1,09,900/- towards return on such principal investment.

Accordingly, third set of investment for Rs.12,00,000/- on and from 24.02.2021 carried along with a promise of return on investment after 365 days. Therefore after completion of 365 days the complainant/petitioner was assured by the OPs of a sum of Rs.1,31,880/- towards return on such principal investment.

That actually under the aforesaid state of affairs the complainant/petitioner was entitled to get a total return on principal investment to the tune and extent of Rs.2, 91,894/- from the OPs.

As aforesaid the complainant/petitioner obtained a sum of Rs.2,01,028/- towards return on principal investment from the OPs.

Therefore, the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get the balance return on principal investment to the tune and extent of Rs.90,866/- from the OPs.

That the complainant by his email tothe OP No.2stated that he did not receivedhis principal investments as also his remaining balance of return on principal investments .

By the same said e mail the complainant/petitioner requested again to close down his all other investmentmore particularly the OP No.3 herein which company issued all such certificate of investments.

That the complainant/petitioner vide a legal notice addressing the OPs demanding return backprincipal sum invested to the ops extent of Rs.25,05,780/- only,by legal notice and it was further requested to credit all the return on principal investment in favour of the complainant/petitioner calculated from the date, months in year of commencement of each of such investment in the account of the complainant.

That in spite of good service of the said legal notices dated 16.08.2022 and inspite of the expiry of the period prescribed therein, the OPs deliberately failed and neglected to comply with the same.

The complainant stated that the opposite parties illegally and unlawfully did not paidprincipal sum invested to the tune and extent of Rs.25,05,780/- only tothe complainantand notcredit all the return on principal investment in in the account of the complainant ,although the OPS had knowledge of receipts of the demand notice on the part of the complainant.

The complainant submitted that the opposite parties with malafide intention or deliberately by adopting an unfair trade practice and they did not paid the principal amount and made payment of interest/return as promised all these tantamount acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.

Finding  no other  alternative way   the complainant has  approach to the this commission for relief and redressal under the Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act 2019.

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

Whether complainant fall in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Whether the commission has the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint

Whether the opposite party in deficient in providing its services to the complainant.

Is the case is maintainable or not

Is the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

OBSERVATION

The complainant falls in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act 2019.

It is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

The main question for consideration before us is whether the opposite parties are deficient in service or not.

Our view is that the opposite parties are liable in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged as the complainant and we considered that entitlement of getting relief sought for by the complainant is also affirmative.

In this case the OPs are not entered appearance in the case did not file any written version/written objection in this case after giving them sufficient time and opportunity.  Hence the case has been run against all the opposite parties.

In this case the complainant has vehemently argued that non return of the principal amount and the interest in the three deposits and the complainant brought the notice of the deficiency to the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed and neglected to make payment of principal amount and interest as stated above.

The commission has given sufficient time to the OPs to file written version against the complainant and the opposite parties failed to produce any such written version/objection of the complaint filed by the complainant, thus the contents complaint petition remain unchallenged.  

On careful perusal of the evidence, that the opposite parties are default in providing appropriate service towards the complainant and in this case the complainant is a consumer and his complaint is maintainable.  Above all we are of considerate opinion that the complainant’s claim is legitimate.

The opposite parties with malafide intention adopted unfair practice and did not return/make payment of principal amount and interest as demanded by opposite parties.

Hence it is

ORDERED

That the instant case being No.CC/601/2022 is allowed exparte against the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.25,96,646/- with interest @9% from dated 16.08.2022  within 60 days  of this order.

Opposite Parties are to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony within 60 days from the date of this order.

Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 60 days.

In the event of non compliance by the OPs, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate necessary action as per law after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Dictated and corrected by

           Member