The complainant’s case can be precisely reproduced as hereunder- The complainant Bharati Ghosh paid Rs.1,04,015/- and Rs.4,26,000/- to OP Souvik Banerjee for investing in Rajib Gandhi Equity Fund and Frankling Templeton Investment being convinced by the oP. The complainant issues two A/c payee cheques bearing no.407800 dated 16.3.2015 and cheque no.074365 dated 6.4.2015 at S.B.I. , Chinsurah branch by RTGS system and both cheques were credited to the oPs account. But the oP did not issue any certificate, any papers or documents like certificate of mutual fund concerned. Complainant also verbally requested the oP for authenticated documents for investment to the complainant. Complainant sent notice to the op. But was unsuccessful. Hence, this case has been filed.
OP has filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations parawise. Complainant has filed false case against the oP as an agent of Mutual Fund Investment. The positive case of the OP is that he is a student of BBA in Calcutta and he is not an agent of Mutual Fund. The complainant took loan of more than Rs.6,00,000/- from his paternal grandfather late Atul Chandra Banerjee on different occasions. Atul Chandra Banerjee entrusted the petitioner to look after the banking transaction and to withdraw the pension from the Bank . After
death of Atul Chandra Banerjee , the legal heir of Atul Chandra Banerjee requested the complainant to hand over the loan amount , remained unpaid at that time. The complainant filed a false case when the oP and Ors claims the account of banking transaction and half portion of the joint property situated at Kodalia mouza which remained joint with the petitioner/complainant. Accordingly, the case should be dismissed with cost.
Complainant filed two photo copies of cheques dated 6.4.2015 and another photo copy of cheque amounting Rs.1,00,415/- dated 16.3.15 . Complainant also filed Affidavit in chief and WNA. OP on the other hand filed Written version and
POINTS FOR DECISION :
1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
The complainant’s case itself shows that she invested the alleged amount in the hand of the oP. But it is not clear for what purpose she invested those amounts.
Her two photo copies of cheques are not the evidence that Op took those cheque, if at all, for the purpose of investment. An investor is not a “consumer” and does not come within the definition of “service” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mutual Fund as alleged has not been proved by the complainant . In fact there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to rely upon her , the Ops have filed on this date on 20.11.2017 showing payments in the name of Bharati Ghosh from 15.2.2008 to 25.4.2014. Such filing of papers does not come within the purview of Ops defence and within the period of this case. Because mischief period is started from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 16.3.2015 and 6.4.2014. Relevant papers ofcourse have not been proved by the complainant to establish debit and credit in the account of the complainant or OP. In fact after searching the whole case records this Forum is still in darkness regarding the reason of filing this case and fashion in which the case has been pleaded by both sides. The neat result stands complainant’s case goes unproved . Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 205 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. But no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties .
