DATE OF FILING: 05.02.2014.

           DATE OF DISPOSAL: 08.06.2018.

Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.   

               The complainant Dinabandhu Khandual  has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties   ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Forum.  

               2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a bona-fide customer of the O.Ps by purchasing of Redeemable Preference Shares of Rs.30,000/- from the O.P.No.2 & 3 through O.P.No.1. The complainant deposited the amount @Rs.100/-each for 300 shares i.e. Rs.30,000/- on 24.01.2008  bearing Application No. SERCL/1022 which has been acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 bearing folio No: DK/0017 dated 31^st January 2008 and issued a confirmation letter vide No. SRECL/ERD/2007-08 dated 01.02.2008with preference share certificate No.6001 having distinctive No. 23451 to 23750 which redemption date was on 31.01.2009. As per agreement and/or contract the O.P.No.1 committed to give dividend amount @ 12% per annum on the invested amount i.e. Rs.30,000/-. The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3600/-per month as well as refund of principal amount of Rs.30,000/- on date of redemption to the share holder. Similarly, the complainant deposited the amount @Rs.100/- each for 300 shares i.e. Rs.30,000/- on 04.07.2009 bearing Application No. SERCL/1982 which has been acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 bearing Folio No.DK/17 dated 10^th July 2009 and issued a confirmation letter No.SRECL/ERD/2009-10 DATED 17.09.2009 ALONGWITH Preference Share Certificate No. 1129 having distinctive No: 60361 to 60660 which redemption dates was on 10.07.2010. As per agreement the O.P.No.1 committed to give dividend amount @ 12% per annum on the invested amount i.e. Rs.30,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant again deposited the amount @ Rs.100/- each for 500 shares i.e. Rs.50,000/- on 31.07.2009 bearing Application No.SERCL/2049 which has been acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 bearing Folio No. DK/17 dated 31^st July 2009 and issued a confirmation letter vide No.1196 having distinctive No. 111261 to 111760 which redemption date was on 31.07.2010. As per agreement contract, the O.P.No.1 committed to give dividend amount @12% per annum on the invested amount i.e. Rs.50,000/-. The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6000/- per month as well as refund of principal amount of Rs.50,000/- on date of redemption to the share holder. Further the complainant deposited the amount @Rs.100/- each for 1500 shares i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- on 20.03.2010 bearing Application No. SERCL/2442 which has been acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 bearing Folio No. DK/17 dated 31^st March 2010 and issued a confirmation letter vide No:SRECL/ERD/2009-10 dated 06.08.2009 alongwith Preference Share Certificate No:1593 having distinctive No. 349841 to 351340 which redemption date was on 20.03.2011. As per agreement contract, the O.P.No.1 committed to give dividend amount @12% per annum on the invested amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as well as refund of principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on date of redemption to the share holder. The complainant invested the total amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. Due to non-payment of the dividend amount and principal amount to the complainant in time as per contract and/or agreement, the O.Ps deceit the complainant and it is a case of the unfair trade practice. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to return the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- paid by the complainant towards Redeemable Preference share with 10% interest annum, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5200/- in the best interest of justice.

               3. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 filed written version. It is stated that the allegation leveled against the O.P.No.2 is not true and correct and the O.P. denies these allegations, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The O.P.No.2 is no way relates with the company neither M/s Sri Ram Krishna Electro Controls Ltd. nor the O.P.No.2 mobilized any client to make investment with the company. The O.P.No.2 never approached the complainant nor persuaded him to make investment with the company. The O.P.No.2 never advised the complainant to make investment with the Electro controls Ltd. As it is learnt that the complainant has good term with the Branch Manager namely Sri Suresh Padhy and being influenced by Sri Padhy the complainant has paid money to Suresh Padhy, the Branch Manager of Sri Rama Krishna Electro Controls ltd as such said Suresh Padhy who has received the heavy payment is squarely responsible for return the amount to the complainant.  At the time of dealing between the complainant and Mr. Padhy O.P.No.2 was not present. So the involvement of O.P.No.2 with the case is purely redundant. The allegation made by the complainant against O.P.No.2 is has no merit. None of the allegation against the O.P.No.2 does not relate to the action of the O.P.No.2 relating to the transaction and has concocted some fabulous story to involve the O.P. No.2. The sole aim of the complainant is to get back his heavy investment from the company because the authorities of the company are not available to the complainant easily as such he has tried to use the O.P.No.2 as a media through whom he can be able to contact Managing Director and Branch Manager. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the case.

               4. Notice were issued against the O.Ps. The O.P.No.3 neither choose to appear nor filed any written version, hence the O.P.No.3 was declared exparte on 12.11.2015.

               5.  On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant is present.  We heard argument from the advocate for complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written version of O.P.No.2, written arguments and materials placed on the case record. The  Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi  has held in case of Ram Lal Aggrawalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd  reported in 2013 (2) CPR 389  that  “Policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain, complaint does not come within purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. In the light of the above decision of law this case is not maintainable before Consumer Forum.   

               In the result, the complainant’s case is dismissed against O.Ps and the complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before any other Forum having competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance and he may avail the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 in the best interest of justice.

               The order is pronounced on this day of 8^th June 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.