DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 27^th day of June 2023.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 09/10/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                Member                

C.C No.303/2020

COMPLAINANT

Suja R Varma,  A1, Vint Pearl Apartment,Pavamkulangara,Choorakkad, Tripunithura, PIN 682301

From Leela Vilasam Kottaram, Kulanada PO, Pathanamthitta District.

(Adv.Raja Raja Varma, RR Varma & Associates, 1^st Floor, “Gourinandanam” VRRA-5, vayanasala Road, Chithrapuzh, Tripunithura, Ernakulam-682 309)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.   M/s Mypopular Marine Products LLP, (AAJ-1621), Regd. Office: 13/575, Popular Tower, Vakayar P.O, Konni Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India, Pin: 689698; Rep. by its Designated Partner Thomas Daniel

2.   Thomas Daniel, , S/o T.K.Daniel, Managing Partner of M/s Popular Dealers,Indikkattil, VakayarP.O,Konni, Pathanamthitta, Kerala-689 698.

3.   Prabha Thomas , Partner of M/s Popular Dealers

Indikkattil, VakayarP.O,Konni, Pathanamthitta, Kerala-689 698

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1.       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the 1^st  Opposite Party, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) engaged in fisheries business, along with the 2nd Opposite Party, who is a Designated Partner and authorized officer of the 1^st  Opposite Party, accepted money from the public promising a 12% annual interest rate. The complainant deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- based on this offer and the introduction by the Branch Manager under the instruction of the 2^nd Opposite Party.

Attracted with the offer of interest @12% per annum and in the introduction of the Branch Manager of the 1^st Opposite party under the instruction of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant was the deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- The details of the deposit as follows:

However, contrary to the promise, the opposite parties failed to pay the agreed interest and declined the complainant's request for premature closure. The amount deposited, along with accrued interest, remains unpaid. The complainant states that she never intended to become a partner in the LLP and was surprised to find that a separate account number was allotted to her. This indicates an intention by the opposite parties to cause loss and injury to the complainant through their negligent actions, constituting a deficiency in service.

The complainant recently discovered that several criminal complaints have been filed against the opposite parties for cheating, breach of trust, and fraud, involving the misappropriation of large sums of money, including the complainant's deposit. The 2nd Opposite Party has been arrested in connection with these offenses. The number of partners in the 1st Opposite Party, as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, is 832.

The complainant alleges that the opposite parties engaged in unfair trade practices and deficient service by accepting shares in the LLP from the complainant under a different account head. Their actions are considered deceptive. The Tripunithura branch office of the company has closed without prior notice to the complainant.

In light of these circumstances, the complainant seeks compensation for the suffered injury and a refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, along with 12% interest from the date of deposit until realization. Additionally, the complainant requests the commission to direct the opposite parties to pay                  Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the injury suffered, along with the deposited amount and interest, as well as Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.

2) Notice

       The notices to the opposite parties were sent by the commission through the Superintendent of Prisons at Sub Jail Mavelikara. However, despite accepting the notices, the opposite parties were absent, and as a result, they are set ex-parte.

3) . Evidence

          The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-3.

Exhibit 1: A copy of receipt No. 0005007 dated 3/7/2019 issued by the opposite parties.

Exhibit 2: A copy of receipt No. 0007185 dated 3/7/2019 issued by the opposite parties.

Exhibit 3: A copy of the Company Master Data, which provides information about the company, including its partners and other relevant details.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?

iii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv)      Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)       The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

           In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  The complainant produced copies of receipts issued by the opposite parties. The receipts evidencing payment to the opposite parties (Exhibits A-1 and 2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         The complainant filed the above case seeking compensation for the deficiency in service caused by the opposite party’s failure to refund the deposited amount. The complainant alleges that the opposite party did not fulfil their obligation to return the money, resulting in a deficiency in the service provided to the complainant.

          The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- with OP 1 managed by OP2 and the other OPs are the shareholders of OP1. The deposit made on the offer and in the introduction of the Branch Manager of the 1st Opposite party under the instruction of the 2nd opposite party, that the OP1 Company is a Non-Banking Financial Company having permission from Reserve Bank of India, under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and Rules made there under to collect the deposit from the public to carry on money lending business and that the opposite party accepting money from the public by offering 12% interest in every year. Attracted with the offer of interest @12% per annum. That contrary to the promise and despite several requests, the opposite parties made chronic defaults in paying the agreed interest. The complainant’s request for premature closure was also declined by the Opposite Parties. Till today the opposite parties have not paid the amount deposited with accrued interest thereon. That complainant never requested to make her a partner to the LLP. From the certificate it is shown as the amount deposited is towards the share in the LLP. Further, it is interestingly revealed that the complainant was allotted a different account number. If the complainant is genuinely interested and admitted to the LLP, there should be one customer account. From the act of the opposite party, it is clearly revealed that the intention behind the 2 opposite party to cause loss and injury to the complainant by a negligent act. This act amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. While so, it comes to know that several criminal complaints have been registered against the Opposite Parties for committing cheating, breach of trust, fraud, etc., for misappropriating cores of the amount deposited by the public including the complainant. The 2^nd  and 3^rd opposite parties, were arrested by the police in connection with the above-said offenses. From the details availed from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the total number of partners in the 1st opposite party is 832. That the act of the opposite parties in accepting shares in the LLP from the complainant that too in a different account head, it is identified that it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties with an intention to cause loss and injury to the complainant by a negligent and unfair trade act. The practice adopted by the opposite parties is deceptive in the provision of service. Now the Tripunithura branch office of the company stands closed without prior notice. The notice to the OPS was issued through the respective Superintendent of Prisons at Sub Jail Mavelikara, even after accepting the notice the OPs are absent and set exparte. The Complainant filed ex-partie proof affidavit A1 to A3 marked. In the contest, it is evidenced that the claim of the complainant was unchallenged and hence it is liable to be allowed with compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this commission may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injury suffered in addition to the deposited amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of deposit till realization and Rs.25,000/- as cost of this proceedings.

           The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- with Opposite Party No.1, which is managed by the Opposite Party NO. 2, and the other Opposite Parties are shareholders of the Opposite Party NO.1. The complainant made the deposit based on an offer presented by the Branch Manager of the 1st Opposite Party under the instruction of the 2nd Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.1 Company is a Non-Banking Financial Company authorized by the Reserve Bank of India to collect deposits from the public for money lending purposes, offering a 12% annual interest rate.  Contrary to the promise, the opposite parties consistently failed to pay the agreed interest despite several requests. The complainant's request for premature closure was also denied. To date, the opposite parties have not paid the deposited amount or the accrued interest. The complainant maintains that she never requested to become a partner in the LLP but was surprised to find a different account number allotted to her. This indicates that the intention of the 2nd Opposite Party is to cause loss and harm to the complainant through negligence, constituting a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

It has come to light that multiple criminal complaints have been registered against the opposite parties, including the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties, for cheating, breach of trust, and fraud involving misappropriation of funds, including the complainant's deposit. The 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties have been arrested in connection with these offenses. According to information from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, there are a total of 832 partners in the 1st Opposite Party.

The act of the opposite parties accepting shares in the LLP from the complainant under a different account head indicates a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, with the intention to cause loss and harm to the complainant through negligence and unfair trade practices. The practice adopted by the opposite parties is deemed deceptive in the provision of service. Furthermore, the Tripunithura branch office of the company has closed without prior notice.

Despite issuing notices through the respective Superintendent of Prisons at Sub Jail Mavelikara, the opposite parties were absent and set exparte, accepting the notice. The complainant filed ex-parte proof affidavits A1 to A3, which were unchallenged. Thus, it is argued that the complainant's claim should be allowed, including compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices.

         The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

1. It is established that the complainant deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- with the 1st Opposite Party, which is managed by the 2nd Opposite Party. The deposit was made based on the offer presented by the Branch Manager of the 1st Opposite Party under the instruction of the 2nd Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party, being a Non-Banking Financial Company authorized by the Reserve Bank of India, collected deposits from the public and offered a 12% annual interest rate.
2. The opposite parties failed to fulfil their obligation to pay the agreed interest and declined the complainant's request for premature closure. The deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, remains unpaid. The complainant never intended to become a partner in the LLP, yet a different account number was allotted to her, indicating the opposite parties' intention to cause loss and harm through their negligent actions, which constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
3. It has come to the commission's attention that multiple criminal complaints have been filed against the opposite parties, including the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties, for cheating, breach of trust, and fraud involving misappropriation of funds, including the complainant's deposit. The 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties have been arrested in connection with these offenses. The total number of partners in the 1st Opposite Party, as per the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, is 832.
4. Considering the evidence and circumstances presented, it is established that the opposite parties engaged in unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by accepting shares in the LLP from the complainant under a different account head. Their actions are deemed deceptive in the provision of service. Furthermore, the closure of the Tripunithura branch office without prior notice adds to the unfairness experienced by the complainant.
5. Despite issuing notices through the Superintendent of Prisons at Sub Jail Mavelikara, the opposite parties were absent and set exparte. The complainant's ex-parte proof affidavits (A1 to A3) were unchallenged.

           The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party would stand to show their callous attitude, utter negligence, and deficiency of service, for which they are solely answerable.

The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency in rendering service and also for immense physical harassment and mental agony.

            We find the issue Nos. (I) to (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Parties shall refund Rs. (2,00,000 +1,00,000) = Total 3,00000/- towards the failure to refund the deposited amount to the complainant.
2.  The Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.25000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties, and for the mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
3.  The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 27^th day of June  2023.

       Sd/-

                                                                           D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                          Forwarded by Order

                                                                             Assistant Registrar

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-3.

Exhibit 1: A copy of receipt No. 0005007 dated 3/7/2019 issued by the opposite parties.

Exhibit 2: A copy of receipt No. 0007185 dated 3/7/2019 issued by the opposite parties.

Exhibit 3: A copy of the Company Master Data, which provides information about the company, including its partners and other relevant details.

C.C No.303/2020

                                                                             Order dated 20.06.2023