Date of filing : 11/12/2019
Date of Judgement : 20/06/2024
Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member
Brief fact of the case is that the complainants has initiated this complaint case under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties whereas the OP No.1 is a registered non banking company and OP No.2 is the Director of the said company. Whereas the complainant was not interested to disclose their occupational status or identity in this case, whoever the complainant who approached to the opposite parties for investment with good faith for benefit and have invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the company i.e. opposite parties vide Account No. G/27505/14/66 for 66 months from the 24th February 2013 and opposite parties assured on maturity, the matured amount would be paid as Rs.1,00,000/- @12.5% interest per annum on 24.08.2018.
As per complaint petition filed by complainants, opposite parties have given interest on the deposited amount @12.5% p.a. up to the month of August 2018 in cash to the complainants but opposite parties suddenly stopped to make payment of monthly interest in the said scheme.
On enquiry the complainants came to know that the company is a chit fund company and its Director, the OP No.2 is under jail custody, the complainant was not aware of such fact before his investment.
Since the OPs did not respond to the phone call of the complainants on several occasions with the request to refund the maturity amount of the certificate, the complainant filed this complaint petition with the prayer for an order directing the OP to refund the maturity amount of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the compensation and cost of litigation.
The OPs have contested the case by filing written version wherein the principal contents are that the complainants are shareholders of the company, as per guideline of the said company no public investor can invest in the company, thus being share holders of the company, the complainants have invested an amount of money in the OP Company for complainant’s personal gain to be yielded out from the said investment.
The OPs have also contended that if the complainants have made their investments in the company, they become share holder of the company, whereas if the complainants are shareholders of the company, they are also owner of the company and they cannot be treated as consumer as per law.
As per the opposite parties complainants are no more consumer and that there was no deficiency in service from and on behalf of the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to produce any supportive documents before the commission to prove that the complainants are shareholders or owners of the company.
In course of the trial/proceedings of the case, complainants filed affidavit-in-chief and BNA along with advancing verbal argument. The OPs filed written version did not file any BNA and also not advanced any verbal argument.
We have applied our mind and meticulously gone through the materials on record.
The complainants in support of their case, filed copies of a non transferable certificate receivable from opposite parties is Rs.1,00,000/- (maturity amount) without date. The OPs submitted no document on evidence in support of their contention except a copy of judgement of this commission.
After perusal of the records, it is observed that complainant with the intent to get benefit of per annum interest from the scheme approached the opposite parties for purchasing the certificate.
As per the complainants, opposite parties have given @12% interest per annum upto the month of August 2018 in cash to the complainants but opposite parties suddenly stopped making payment of monthly interest in the said scheme.
Since the OPs did not respond to the phone call of the complainants on several occasions with the request to refund the dues, the complainants lodged this complaint with the prayer for an order directing the OPs to refund the maturity amount, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the compensation and cost of litigation.
POINTS FOR DICISION
- Whether complainant fall in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act 2019.
- Whether the present complaint is within limitation under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Whether the commission has the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint
- Whether the opposite parties are deficient of 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 complainants fall in the category of the ‘Consumer’ under C.P. Act 2019.
The complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
The commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint, as the office of the OPs in question is situated at Premises No.10/99 Bijoygarh, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata–700 092.
The main question for consideration before us is whether the opposite parties are deficient by not refunding the matured amount of the certificate.
Our view is that opposite parties are liable in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant regarding refunding the principal amount i.e. Rs.50,000/-, with further interest @12.5% p.a., whereas complainant already received interest in this scheme for a certain period.
Now, we are proceeding with the merit of the case.
We observe that the complainants are the consumers and they deprived of service by the opposite parties about the complainant’s plea that the opposite parties have defrauded the investors i.e. complainant by not making any amount after maturity of certificate or investment may be accepted.
It is also evident that the opposite parties not come to this commission with clean hands and they have deliberately concealed materials facts by way of not furnishing any document regarding their connection and involvement with the opposite parties.
The opposite parties have issued only one non-transferable certificate which was handed over to complainant without imposing any date of issuance of the said certificate. Nothing reflected from the certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainants whether the certificate is of a monthly income scheme or yearly income scheme certificate.
Even the opposite parties have not produced any document regarding status of complainant with the opposite parties whether the complainants are shareholder of the company as they contended same in their written version filed in this case. Hence they failed to prove that complainants are share holder or owner of the company and complainants used to receive the profit from the company for gain.
We also find that the complainants never disclosed that the interest which would be earned from the said scheme for the purpose of the sole livelihood and their family and they have utilised the service/product exclusively for purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment, the opposite parties have not strongly contended this point with supporting documents as evidence.
Above all our observation is that such type of investment and earnings from such certificate are suspicious and irregular. However, considering principal of natural justice and equity, the complaint petition filed by the complainants is allowed partly on merit without any cost, as the initial amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by complainant be refunded by the OPs are acceptable. Thus complainants are entitled only to get return back the initial deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- with @12.5% interest from September 2018 until the actual payment to be made by the Opposite Parties.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That CC/648/2019 is allowed partly and Opposite Parties are directed to refund the principal/deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- along with 12.5% interest from September 2018 till the date of actual payment to the complainants.
Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- for harassment, litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and all amounts to the complainants within 60 days.
Copy to be delivered upon parties free of cost.
Directed and corrected by me
Member
