Order No. 13 dt. 31/08/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with the o.p. company in the form of Fixed Deposit vide FDR No. 1214185 dated 03/04/2013 of Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of the complainants and another being no. 1214587dated 09/04/2013 of Rs.1,40,000/- in the name of Pranati Pal. All these aforesaid investments were made through M/s. Bajaj Capital Limited and the date of maturity of those deposits were fixed on 03/04/2016 and 09/04/2016 respectively with interest @12.5% in both the cases. The o.p. company did not pay any interest since April,2015. The o.p. company forwarded a copy of the application U/S 74(2) of the Companies Act,2013 to CLB proposing the repayment of the deposits in installments. The complainants on numerous occasions requested the o.p. company for refund of the amount but no step was taken for which the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. company for refund of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest and compensation as well as litigation cost.
The o.p. no.1 (M/s. Unitech Limited) has not contested the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex-parte against them.
The o.p. no.2 (M/s. Bajaj Capital Limited) contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint and stating inter alia that they acted as an agent of o.p. no.1 and they never gave any undertaking to refund the amount after the maturity period. The o.p. no.1 has already been approached the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi and filed a petition under the provision of Companies Act for seeking extension of time and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 04/07/2016. The o.p. no.1 thereafter preferred an appeal and the said matter was listed on 21/07/2017. The complainants have filed this case for recovery of the maturity amount of the fixed deposit along with accrued interest against the o.p. no.1. since the o.p. no.2 has no role to play for the said amount invested by the complainants, therefore, the o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for the payment of any amount to the complainants. Considering the said fact the o.p. no.2 prayed for they may be exempted from payment of the amount if at all decided by this Forum.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainants paid an amount to o.p. no.1 for fixed deposit?
- Whether after the maturity period the o.p. no.1 failed to refund the amount to the complainants?
- Whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the o.p.1?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the 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.
The Ld. Lawyer of the complainants argued that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- with the o.p. company in the form of Fixed Deposit vide FDR No. 1214185 dated 03/04/2013 of Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of the complainants and another being no. 1214587dated 09/04/2013 of Rs.1,40,000/- in the name of Pranati Paul. All these aforesaid investments were made through M/s. Bajaj Capital Limited and the date of maturity of those deposits were fixed on 03/04/2016 and 09/04/2016 respectively with interest @12.5% in both the cases. The o.p. company did not pay any interest since April,2015. The o.p. company forwarded a copy of the application U/S 74(2) of the Companies Act,2013 to CLB proposing the repayment of the deposits in installments. The complainants on numerous occasions requested the o.p. company for refund of the amount but no step was taken for which the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. company for refund of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest and compensation as well as litigation cost.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p no.2 argued that they acted as an agent of o.p. no.1 and they never gave any undertaking to refund the amount after the maturity period. The o.p. no.1 has already been approached the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi and filed a petition under the provision of Companies Act for seeking extension of time and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 04/07/2016. The o.p. no.1 thereafter preferred an appeal and the said matter was listed on 21/07/2017. The complainants have filed this case for recovery of the maturity amount of the fixed deposit along with accrued interest against the o.p. no.1. since the o.p. no.2 has no role to play for the said amount invested by the complainants, therefore, the o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for the payment of any amount to the complainants. Considering the said fact the o.p. no.2 prayed for they may be exempted from payment of the amount if at all decided by this Forum.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- to the o.p. no.1 towards the fixed deposit payment and after the maturity of the said amount the complainants demanded for the refund of the amount but unfortunately the o.p. no.1 did not pay any heed. It appears from the materials on record that the o.p. no.1 failed to pay the amount to different depositors for which a case is pending before the NCLT. It appears from the materials on record that the complainants in order to proof the fact that they paid the amount, filed the documents which has not been controverted by the o.p. no.2 who acted as an agent of o.p. no.1 towards the acceptance of the fixed deposit amount on behalf of the o.p. no.1. It is also an admitted fact after the maturity period the complainants have not been paid the amount for which the complainants filed this case. The case of the complainants has remained unchallenged since the o.p. no.1 did not contest and the document filed by the complainants corroborate the allegation made against the o.p. no.1, therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no.1 and the complainants will be entitled to get the refund of the amount paid to the o.p. no.1.
On the basis of the facts and circumstances all the points are disposed accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. CC/237 of 2017 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.1 and is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Thousand) only to the complainants along with compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten 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.
