Delhi

North

CC/448/2022

NARESH CHAND JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

YES SECURITIES INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

CC No.: 448/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Naresh Chand Jain

S/o. Late Sh. Shital Prashad Jain,

7291, 3rd Floor,

Prem Nagar, Gali No. 2,

Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007                                                           ….. Complainant                                                                                                                                                                  

 

Versus

 

YES SECURITIES (INDIA) LIMITED,

2 Floor, North Side,

Yes Bank House,

Off Western Express Highway,

Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055.                                                              …. OP-1

 

The Branch Manager,

Yes Bank Ltd.,

Kamla Nagar Branch,

Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007                                                                        …. OP-2

ORDER

18-01-24

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The facts, as alleged in the present complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, are that:-

 

1. The complainant had taken PRS (Premium Research Service Silver plan) from YES Securities (India) Limited/OP-1 through the opposite party no. 2 on Nov 11, 2021 and Rs. 50,000 + GST i.e. Total Rs.59,000/- was debited from his account for availing the said service from the Opposite Parties.
2.  The subscription plan in which the complainant subscribed for was pitched to the complainant solely for two purposes i.e. (1) for the conversion of complainant's physical share certificate into the Demat Account and (2) for providing all the market research and suggestions to do trading etc. at the end of every month and with all the possible investment suggestion the complainant can opt for the investment of his money, as the PRS (Premium Research Plan) claimed to be the only service which is supposed to be provided against the subscription amount by the opposite party to the complainant is to provide the client with possible market investment scenarios, suggestions to do trading etc. and for the conversion of physical share into the Demat account.
3. It has been stated that none of the above assured services was provided by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant against the subscription money received by the opposite party at the time of signing for the subscription plan. The complainant at the time of signing for the subscription plan was convinced by bank staff i.e. opposite party no. 2 that the plan is for the complainant's benefit and complainant was assured of receiving the return of 20%- 30%. The complainant was assured by the branch manager Mr. Anurag Vijeta in front of Ms. Divya Bansal another employee of Yes bank that if he does not transact in the scheme, then the advance subscription fee/commission will be returned fully without any deductions to complainant.
4. It has been alleged that the complainant after getting annoyed of unprofessional attitude of the opposite parties, requested the bank through E-mail dated 12.04.2022, to deactivate the Demat account and sought a refund of the subscription amount but no satisfactory reply was received by the complainant. In order to close the Demat account the complainant made all the due diligence and continuously intimated the opposite party but the opposite party continued to ignore the Emails of the complainant for the reason best known to them. The reply by opposite party to the Email dated 12.05.2022 of the complainant was received by the complainant on 24.05.2022. The replies that were made by the opposite party were nothing but just the obligatory responses and no concrete remedy was provided by opposite party to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant remained unanswered. The complainant after making all the efforts which went futile and having no option left, got served the opposite parties with the legal notice dated. 01.10.2022 through his counsel. The opposite party replied to the legal notice of the complainant stating that the terms and conditions signed by the complainant and mentioned the Clauses of the terms and conditions ie. "Terms and Conditions" (i.e. Page no. 2, Point 4 and 5) which clearly denotes that the amount paid for the said service is a non-refundable. It is clear that opposite parties doesn't have any intent of conducting market research against the subscription money of complainant's PSR plan. With the above mentioned clause that states the non- refund policy of the brokerage/ commission is nothing but the way to trap customers into their yearly plan and not giving any services as promised shows their malafide intention. This clearly shows the unfair trade practices followed by the opposite parties to misuse the hard earned money of the innocent complainant who is a senior citizen and was unable to read the terms and conditions of the agreement because of cataract. The opposite party made false assurance of providing return against the subscription money received by the opposite parties and making the complainant believe that he will be provided with the market research, however, nothing as promised was ever turned into a reality.

 

2.       Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint praying for directions to the OPs to refund the subscription money of Rs. 59, 000/- (Rs. 50, 000+ GST) with interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. It has also been prayed that computation of the harassment and agony faced at the old age by the complainant cannot be compensated in terms of money, however, the complainant restricts its claim towards mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and thus the total claim of the complainant is of Rs.1,09,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand Only) plus future and pendent lite interest alongwith cost of litigation.

 

3.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs to defend the complaint before the commission but the OPs neither appeared nor did send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OPs have chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service and has been proceeded Ex-parte, the allegations made by the Complainant have remained un-rebutted.

4.       The complainant has filed evidence and has also led ex-parte arguments. It has also been brought on record by the complainant that after receipt of notice from this Commission, the opposite party has credited an amount of Rs. 50.000/- in the account of the complainant on 01.02.2023 but did not refund the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/-.

5.       Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences/arguments and material available on records. Since the OPs have chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, it is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations of deficiency of service and harassment to the complainant by the OPs. The complainant has also contended during arguments that by refunding Rs. 50,000/-, after issue of the notice by this commission, the opposite parties have admitted their guilt, deficiency in service, false promise, allurement and negligence. It is established law that an admission need not to be proved.  

6.       In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP 1 & 2  in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.

7.       Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OPs to:-

 

1. refund the subscription money of Rs. 59, 000 (Rs. 50, 000+ GST) (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand only), to the complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 08/12/2022  till the date of the payment;
2. pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental  pain, agony and harassment caused.

 

8.       It is clarified that the aforesaid amount shall be paid by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 30 days as directed above at para 7 (i) & (ii). In case, the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period. It is also clarified that the OP is entitled to deduct the amount of Rs. 50.000/- paid to the complainant on 01.02.2023, after calculating the amount as ordered above in para 7.

9.       Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                       ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                             HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                                     Member                                                                                  Member      

                              DCDRC-1 (North)                                                            DCDRC-1 (North)

 

DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

President 

DCDRC-1 (North)