Date of filing : 06.09.2018

Judgment : Dt.16.03.2020

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member

          This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Nilima Sadhukhan against the opposite Parties  (1) Rahul Inn Hospitality Limited. (2) Rahul Banerjee (3) Diptendu Banerjee (4) Dipankar Gupta.

          Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased  1000 secured Redeemable  Debentures  from the  OP bearing Folio No. 13/03/KOL – 33080 under Allotment no. SAL/000171, from  Distinctive Nos. 66376 to 64644735 under Scheme  SD  in respect of  Application no.SAL/FD/0313/0005 dt. 13.03. 2015 for a period of  5 years and  it was promised that after expiry of  5 years the complainant  would   get  Rs. 2,20,000/- on the date of redemption i.e.  on 13.03.2018. The complainant has stated that the OP handed over a cheque to the complainant  bearing no. 307736 drawn on  Axis Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch on 13.03.2018 but the  said cheque was dishonoured by the UCO Bank    on presentation to the Banker of the complaint and returned on 26.06.2018. The complainant  has further stated that on several occasions she  requested the OPs to refund the said amount but the  OPs paid  no heed to that request and lastly on  10.08.2018 the OPs refused to pay the said  amount which causes harassment  to the complainant  and being aggrieved  the complainant sent legal notice dt. 13.08.2018  but that  too yielded   no result and therefore the complainant by filing the instant consumer complaint praying  for direction upon the OPs to pay redemption value of Rs. 2,20,000/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and for other reliefs and cost.

          The complainant annexed photocopies of Letter of Allotment, cheque bearing no. 307763, Branch wise report of inward Return Clearing Items, Passbook of complainant, letter dt. 13.08.2018 issued from  the end of the complainant.

          Notices were served but the OPs did not turn up  so the case proceeded exparte vide order dt. 23.04.2019.

          The complainant adduced evidence. 

Decision with reasons

          In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant  placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal passed in FA/08/43  (  Rose  Valley  Group of  Companies –vs. – Smt. Prova Mandal ). The complainant submitted that the instant case is maintainable before  this Forum  and placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal  passed on 28.11.2008 in FA/08/43  ( Rose Valley Group of Companies  -vs. – Smt. Prova Mandal ) while dealing  an appeal  filed by the debenture issuing authority in respect of  a consumer complaint regarding delayed payment of  maturity amount of the  redemption value  of the debentures wherein their Lordships  pleased to hold “............ we find there is substance in  the contention of the respondent that when the complainant obtained debentures investing her  own money with OPNo.1 company the agreement was that the maturity amount is to be paid  by OP No.1 to the complainant  on maturity of debentures. Therefore when maturity amount of  the said amount payable by the OPNo.1 to the  complainant, was not paid, was deficiency in service.

          Therefore it does not matter as to whether the debentures are goods within the Consumer Protection Act, there being deficiency in service, the complaint  is maintainable”.

          In the light of the discussion made by the Hon’ble SCDRC we also hold that the instant case is maintainable.

          The complainant claimed to have purchased  1000/- debebentures from the OP on 13.03.2013 and the OP promised to  refund  Rs. 2,20,000/- on the date of redemption  i.e. on 13.03.2018. Letter of Allotment filed by the complainant supports such contention of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the OP issued a cheque amounting Rs.2,20,000/- on 13.03.2018 but on presentation of said cheque for crediting  the said amount to the account of the complainant maintained with UCO Bank, the Bank dishonoured the cheque and returned the same. Documents filed by the complainant also supports such allegation of the complainant. It is therefore  evident that the  redemption value of RS. 2,20,000/- has not been paid by OPs which amounts to deficiency in service

          Furthermore the un-rebutted as well as unchallenged evidence adduced by the complainant also proves the allegations made by the complainant. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to get relief regarding disbursement of redemption value.

          Regarding compensation, we do not find any ground to allow such prayer.

          However, the OPs compelled the complainant to file the instant case and, therefore, they are liable to pay cost of litigation.

Hence,

                     Ordered

          That CC/529/2018 is allowed exparte with cost.    

The OPs  are directed to disburse  redemption  value of Rs. 2,20,000/- in favour of the complainant within two months from the date of communication  of this order to them failing which  the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. The OPs are further directed to pay  Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation within above-mentioned period.