Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief fact of this case:-
This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that in the year 2012 the opposite party nos. 3 and 5 approached the complainant to invest in opposite party company for high returns and then the complainant being allured by opposite party nos. 3,4 and 5 decided to invest his money in the opposite party company and opposite party no. 5 convinced that after expiry of 3 years the complainant would get high returns. On 31.5.2012 the complainant gave Rs. 5,00,000/- from his bank account and against the payment opposite parties issued one certificate of property being allotment no. AIRL/RX000260/78 on 21.6.2012 in the name of the complainant. It was told by the O.P No-3,4 and 5 that the complainant would get Rs. 5000/- as monthly interest from opposite party company and after 3 years after the date of maturity the complainant would get his invested principal amount back. But in the last two months of the tenure the monthly interest was not disbursed properly and hence the opposite party company gave the complainant payment order which was also bounced and the complainant was given Rs. 5000/- in cach by the opposite party no. 5 on 5.9.2015. But after the expiry of tenure on 31.5.2015 when the complainant went to the opposite party nos. 3 and 5 for receipt of his matured amount he had to return empty handed and since then the opposite parties are dragging the matter and delaying the payment. On 2.9.2013 the opposite party no. 5 once taken the original certificate for conversion of the property and returned the certificate on 2.3.2015. Then opposite parties began to give different dates for disbursement of complainant’s matured amount but there were no fruitful result.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to refund Rs. 5,00,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- for litigation cost and to give any other relief or reliefs as deem fit and proper.
Defense Case:-
The opposite party nos. 3 & 5 contest the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations leveled against them and state that the opposite party no. 5 is no way connected with the said company and never convinced the complainant to invest his money in opposite party company for high returns. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are no way concerned whether the monetary interest was coming after 31.5.2012 to the complainant month wise and everything was going fine and also in the last two months of the alleged tenure the monthly interest was not disbursed properly and hence the opposite party company gave the complainant payment order which was also bounced. The opposite party no. 5 never took any original certificate or any kind of document from the complainant for conversion of the property and the opposite parties never gave any dates for disbursement of the complainant’s matured amount. No amount was lying with the opposite parties and as such that cannot help the complainant and the complainant never tried his best to recover his money from the opposite party nos. 3 and 5 as such there was no question of returning the complainant dejected on every occasion. The opposite parties never took the complainant from 2015 to 2016 with their vague assurance and they have never assured the complainant that his money will be given in 2017. Thus, the present case is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
Evidence adduced by the complainant
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Heard argument of complainant at length.
On the basis of the pleading of the complainant, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue No.1
The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated 30/8/21 has been pleased to observe that the present complainant is a consumer and investment in NBFC does not ipso facto debarred anyone to become a consumer.
Issue No.2
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that the same does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/ which is the pecuniary limit to try any complaint case as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. Accordingly, this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present proceeding.
Issue nos.3& 4 :
It may be noted herein that vide order no. 12 dated 10/6/22 this commission has passed an order for ex parte hearing against O.P.Nos- 1 to 5. On scrutiny of the records it appears that the O.P.Nos. 3 & 5 ( both wife and husband) have filed a joint written version.
Admittedly, whether being allured or not by the O.P.Nos. 3 & 5 the petitioner invested in the O.P company { O.P.Nos. 1,2 & 4(Manager, Alchemist Infra Reality)} an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ withdrawing the amount from Axis Bank , Rishra Branch against which one certificate of property being allotment no. AIRL/RX00026078 dated 31/5/2012 was issued in his name. It appears that one photocopy of this certificate of property has been filed along with the petition of complaint. A photocopy of the above certificate clearly indicates t5hat the original certificate was taken by the O.P.No-5 on 2/9/2013 as is evident from the writings of Mr. Mritunjay Ash with his signature thereon on 2/9/13.
This commission has come to know that the indenture was executed on 31/5/2012 of which tenure expires on 31/5/2015 i.e., for a period of three years.
From the averments of the petition of complaint it transpires that the petitioner has got monthly return of Rs. 5000/ as interest from the O.P. company for two years and eleven months which means the complainant has not been given return of Rs. 5000/ only for one month, that is the last month. It also appears that though vehemently denied by the O.P.Nos. 3 & 5 in their written version that they have no connection with regard to the present problem yet in so many words it is palpably clear from the written version they are the persons who allured the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/ to get a monthly return of Rs. 5000/ therefrom.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove this commission has reason to be convinced that an amount of Rs. 5000/ still remains to be paid to the complainant as monthly interest and the fact remains that the quantum of money of Rs. 5,00,000/( initial withdrawal from the Axis bank as is evident from the photocopy of the S/B account of the petitioner) deposited to the O.P company ( evident from the certificate of property) has not yet been returned to the petitioner, the reason best known to the O.P.Nos 3 & 5 which bears the agent code no. 0090009902 of Gopa Ash( O.P.No-3) and who is none else than the wife of Mritunjay Ash(O.P.No-5). Be it mentioned here that these O.P.Nos. 3 & 5 have jointly filed a written version though have not dared to contest the case ill its end.
Accordingly, it casts a legal obligation on the O.P. Nos. 3 & 5 to make payment of Rs. 5000/ to the petitioner which still remains unpaid and all the O.P.nos-1 to 5 jointly arrange to pay Rs. 5,00,000/ to the petitioner along with other reliefs.
Hence,
Ordered
that the complaint case no. 198 of 2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against all the O.P.Nos-1 to 5.
O.P.Nos-3 & 5 do pay Rs. 5000/ and all the O.P.Nos-1 to 5 do jointly arrange to pay 5,00,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum over the amount of Rs 5,00,000/ since June 2015 to the complainant within 45 days from date and the o.P.Nos 1 to 5 also jointly do pay Rs. 10000/ for mental agony and harassment within 45 days from date failing which the complainant be at liberty to take recourse to law.
O.Ps are further directed to deposit Rs. 3000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly for the poor litigant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
