Order No. 12 dt. 04/03/2020
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant deposited Rs30,650/-to the op-company and the op-company issued receipt no 071027368690 dt 15.09.2012 under the scheme ‘Q Shop Plan-H’. The above stated investment was made for a period of six years. After expiry of six years the complainant repeatedly attempted to approach the o.p. for payment of the matured amount (2.35 times of the original deposit) but o.p. was not available for getting the matured amount of complainant. Complainant caused to issue legal notice on 09.04.2019 to the op for payment of the amount due. But op did not respond to the call of the complainant. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.ps for payment of the money invested along with compensation of Rs50,000/-for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost as the forum may deem fit.
Ops contested the case by filing w/v and denied all material allegations leveled against them. Ld lawyer of the o.p. has argued by saying that it is not true that o.p. has denied to make payment. O.p. has contended that complainant has not produced the original certificate for which the payment can not be made. Again complainant is not a consumer as she is a customer of the company i.e. the transaction is a commercial transaction. Hence the case is not maintainable. Therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction. Ld lawyer also submitted that the complainant is frivolous and speculative; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the ops. Ops have denied all the allegations of the complainant as raised and prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided:-
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant is argued that the complainant deposited Rs30,650/-to the op-company and the op-company issued receipt no 071027368690 dt 15.09.2012 under the scheme ‘Q Shop Plan-H’. The above stated investment was made for a period of six years. After expiry of six years the complainant repeatedly attempted to approach the o.p. for payment of the matured amount (2.35 times of the original deposit) but o.p. was not available for getting the matured amount of complainant. Complainant caused to issue legal notice on 09.04.2019 to the op for payment of the amount due. But op did not respond to the call of the complainant. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.ps for payment of the money invested along with compensation of Rs50,000/-for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost as the forum may deem fit. Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. is argued that it is not true that o.p. has denied to make payment. O.p. has contended that complainant has not produced the original certificate for which the payment cannot be made. Again complainant is not a consumer as she is a customer of the company i.e. the transaction is a commercial transaction. Hence the case is not maintainable. Therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction. Ld lawyer also submitted that the complainant is frivolous and speculative; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the ops. Ops have denied all the allegations of the complainant as raised and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record it is evident that the complainant deposited Rs30,650/-to the op-company and the op-company issued receipt no 071027368690 dt 15.09.2012 under the scheme ‘Q Shop Plan-H’. The above stated investment was made for a period of six years. After expiry of six years the complainant repeatedly attempted to approach the o.p. for payment of the matured amount but o.p. was not available for getting the matured amount of complainant. Complainant caused to issue legal notice on 09.04.2019 to the op for payment of the amount due. But op did not respond to the call of the complainant. O.p. had collected the investment amount from the complainant without obeying company laws. Again o.p. had not obtained prior permission from SEBI or Reserve Bank of India prior to collection of money from the investor. The scheme launched by o.p-company is very much obscure and it is not clearly manifested at all to the vivid conception of the complainant about the scheme. Thus, with this scheme the op-company has maneuver willfully a practice which is an unfair trade practice. Complainant averred that after expiry of six years complainant repeatedly attempted to approach the o.p. for getting the payment of the said amount but o.p. was not available in any manner. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this case praying direction upon the o.ps for payment of the money of Rs72,027/-. Op did not paid the matured amount in time after calling for the documents from the complainant. In view of the above position we have arrived to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Therefore, complainant is entitled to get relief. The case is , thus, disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered.
That the case no.134/2019 is allowed on contest against the ops with cost. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally, directed to pay a sum of Rs. Rs72,027/-(Rupees Seventy Two thousand Twenty seven) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One thousand ) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
