Tripura

West Tripura

CC/63/2019

Sri. Subrata Acharjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Sahara India Pariwar - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.De, Mr.U.Das

03 Jan 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST TRIPURA: AGARTALA

CASE No. CC- 63 of 2019
                        
Sri Subrata Acharjee,
S/O- Sri Sukumar Acharjee,
Ramnagar Gangail Road,
P.O. Ramnagar, Agartala,
West Tripura -799002.        ...….................Complainant.

-VERSUS-

1. The Branch Manager,
Sahara India Pariwar,
Agartala Sector,
Branch Office- Kashari Patty,
West Tripura, Pin- 799001.    

2. The Assistant General Manager,
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhawan BKC, Plot No. C4-A, 'G' Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra(East),
Mumbai, Maharastra-400051.     ..................Opposite Parties.

     __________PRESENT__________

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant            : Mr. Karnajit De,
                          Mr. Utpal Das,
                          Mr. Kanta Debbarma,
                          Learned Advocates.

    For the O.P. No.1.             : Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh,
                          Mr. Mihir Bijoy Deb, A.R.
                        
                                                    
For the O.P.  No.2.            : Sri Abhijit Gonchoudhury,
                      Learned Advocate.

            JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  03.01.2022
J U D G M E N T
        The Complainants' case in short is that the complainant purchased 3 bonds in the year 2010 and 2011 from the O.P. No.1 in different dates namely Housing Bond, Nirman Band and Adobe Bond. On 30.01.2010 complainant purchased a Housing Bond of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt  no. 240210327069, control no. 24023500932 of Housing Investment Corporation Ltd. in short SHICL  matured value of Rs.32,000/- for 10 years. Complainant on 22.11.2010 purchased one Nirman Bond of Rs.10,000 vide receipt no. 240210420440, control no. 24023403427 of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. in SIRECL of matured value of Rs.14,116/-  maturity date 22.11.2014. Complainant on 1st April 2011 purchased another bond named Adobe Bond vide receipt no. 240211330260, control 24024001266, matured value of Rs.20,000/-. Before the date of maturity Sahara's Agent had approached to the complainant to convert Nirman Bond to Sahara Bond to Q Shop certificate. Accordingly on good faith complainant had converted the Nirman Bond to Sharaha Q Shop Unique products range Ltd. on which complainant was provided a new certificate bearing no.562015437528 stating the maturity date as 24.05.2018 and maturity value of Rs.27,612/-. Again  on request of of the agent complaint converted Adobe Bond to Sharaha Q shop Unique Products Range Ltd. maturity value is stated as Rs.55,695/-. Complainant approached with two Q shops certificates and one Bond certificate but the O.P. denied to give the matured value. Several times the complainant requested O.P. No.1 to return his money but the O.P. No.1 did not respond. It is also stated  that the Securities and Exchange Board of India in short SEBI had issued a notice with caption ''APPLY TO SEBI FOR REFUND'' in the year 2018. after publication of the notice of SEBI the complainant with original bond of Sahara Housing investment Corporation Ltd. applied application for refund to SEBI  for getting the matured value of the bond. But SEBI in its letter had clearly stated that the concerned bond of the complainant is not available with SEBI even after going through the physical documents and electronic data submitted by SEBI. Hence he filed this complaint before this Commission.    

2.        The O.Ps appeared and filed written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainants in their complaint petition. They have stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed. It is stated by the O.P.No.2 that SEBI is a statutory body established under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 passed by the Parliament. The objective of SEBI as  stated in the preamble of the SEBI Act, is to protect the interest of investors in securities and to develop and regulate the securities market in India. SEBI takes measures to protect the interest of investors and for the development of the securities market in performance of its statutory functions. It is also stated by the O.P. No.2 that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. No complaint is maintainable against SEBI under Section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. SEBI does not render any service for consideration. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The performance of statutory functions cannot be construed as service as defined under the C.P. Act 1986. Moreover SEBI does not collect any fees or other charges from the investors  for the functions being performed by it under the Act for protecting the interests of the investors in securities and and as such the complaint against SEBI is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated by the O.P. No.2 that according to the order of the Honbl'e Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9813 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2011 the investments in other schemes/group companies of the Sahara Group is not covered in the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore no payment can be made by SEBI to the investors of the scheme/group of companies. It is also stated that the complainant applied to SEBI for refund of his investment in SHICL for Rs.10,000/- but the said bond could not processed and refund was not made as the details of the said bond was not available in the records/documents submitted by the Sahara to SEBI and hence complainant's application was treated under 'No Record Found(NRF)' case. Application of the complainant dated 11.06.2018 for refund could not be processed in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Interlocutory Application(IA) No.161-163 on 01.04.2016. No application  along with bond w.r.t. Nirman and Adobe Bond of SIRECL has been filed by the complainant with SEBI. Hence, the O.P. No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complainant filed by the complainant. O.P. No.1 filed their written statement after statutory period but it was not accepted vide order dated 20.01.2020. O.P. No.1 participated on the date of argument.        

3.        EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-
        Complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. 1. Also produced 8 documents which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

4.             POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: -
    (i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in law?            
    (ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
     (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?    

5.                ARGUMENTS: -
        We have heard arguments of both side at length. Learned counsel Mr. Karnajit De appearing for the complainant submitted that complainant purchased 3 bonds from the O.P. No.1  in different dates and after maturity of the bonds complainant demanded to O.P. No.1 to give the matured value and several times the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to return his matured value but they did not respond. Mr. Dey submitted that complainant also made correspondence with the SEBI and SEBI also failed to give any relief and that is why complainant filed his complaint before this Commission seeking relief. Mr. De further submitted that the complaint is maintainable in law and in support of his submission he relied upon the decision of Apex Court decided in Civil Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of 2010 decided on 23.04.2013(Virender Jain Vrs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group  Housing Society Ltd. and Others) and also another judgment passed by the Hon'ble NCSDRC in Revision Petition no- 2210 of 2018 decided on 07.02.2020. Sahara India Pariwar and Another Vrs. Shyamwati relied upon the above decisions Mr. De submitted that the complaint is maintainable and complainant has been able to prove his case. So, complainant is entitled to get his matured value and also compensation for deficiency of service by O.P. No.1.
        On the other hand Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh appeared for the O.P. and he argued that complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law as well as decision of the Hon'ble National Commission decided in Revision petition no- 4871  of 2012 decided on 2nd September 2013. Mr. Singh also relying upon the decision of our State Commission decided in Appeal no- 02/2001(Paramita Deb Vrs. Sector Head, Agartala City Sector Office decided on 10.05.2021. Mr. Singh relying upon the decision of our State Commission submitted that the matter has been settled that complaint is not maintainable under provision of Section 84 of the Multi state Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and there is also by-laws 62 of Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and as per by-laws when there is a dispute between the member and the society then the same is to be settled by Arbitrator not by any court. Mr. Singh at last submitted that the complaint is not maintainable in law and it is liable to be dismissed.  Written argument are also submitted by the complainant side and also by the O.P. No.1.  

6.        DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-
        We have carefully gone through the complaint. Written objection is submitted by SEBI and in their written objection they stated that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)of the C.P. Act 1986 and SEBI is also neither rendered any service for consideration to the complainant nor the complainant has hired the service of the SEBI U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. At para 11 of the written statement it is stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.08.2012 inter alia directed SEBI to refund to the bond holders of SIRECL and SHICL schemes only after verification the genuineness to the claim. Accordingly, the investment in other schemes/ group of companies of the Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. including Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Ltd is not covered in the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.         
        From the written statement of the SEBI (O.P. No.2) we find that SEBI is not necessary party but complainant made SEBI as party  in this proceeding. Hence, complaint is not maintainable.  We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the lawyer of the complainant and we find that the facts and circumstances of both cases are not similar as well as befitted in the instant case. So, the decisions relied upon by the counsel of the complainant is not applicable in the instant case.
        It is pertinent to mention that earlier one Smt. Paramita Deb filed complaint against O.P. No.1 seeking matured value of the policy invested in the Sahara Group Cooperative Society Ltd. and the complaint lodged by the Smt. Paramita Deb was registered as CC-72/2019 and it was decided by this Commission by judgment dated 30.12.2020. Complaint was dismissed being not maintainable as per law. The said Paramita Deb preferred appeal against the judgment before Hon'ble State Commission, Agartala and Hon'ble State commission in Appeal affirmed the judgment and decided that the complaint is not maintainable as per decision of Smt. Kalawati and Ors. Vrs. M/S United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit and Society Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble national commission in Revision petition no- 822 to 826 of 2001. At the time of argument Mr. Singh relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble State Commission. On perusal of the complaint petition we find that facts of the instant proceeding is similar to the facts of CC-72 of 2019 which was dismissed being not maintainable as per law. In our considered view the instant proceeding is also not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Smt. Kalawati & Ors.(Supra). So, the instant complaint is not maintainable in law. Accordingly the issue no.1 is decided.

7.        Issue nos. 2 and 3:-
        Since the issue no.1 is decided in negative and the complainant is not maintainable as per law, it is not necessary to discuss the issue Nos. 2 & 3.
        In the result the complaint is dismissed as it is not maintainable as per law and no costs.
        Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.

Announced.

SRI R. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

Dr (SMT) B. PAL
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.
  

 

 SRI SAMIR GUPTA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.