West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/13/2017

Tarun Kr Sadhu, S/O Lt M.Sadhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unix Infrustructure Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

22 Mar 2021

ORDER

The case of the complainant Mr.Tarun Kr. Sadhu in brief, is that he purchased some bonds depositing sum of Rs. 7,20,000/ from the OP with assurance of the return with appreciation value of Rs. 7,92,000/ from 4 bonds and also the closing date of argument will be 22/03/2013.

            That the Opposite parties after receiving the aforesaid amount against the bond issued 4 certificates vide application No. R134553 tc R 134556 dated 23/03/2012 of Rs. 1,98,000/ for each certificate as return with application value of Rs. 7,92,000/ in total.

            That the complainant after the date of maturity claimed the maturity amount from the Ops. That the Ops considering the claim of the complainant in order to repay the maturity amount, issued a cheque vide No. 676121 dated 16/05/2013 of Rs. 7,92,000/- in favour of the complainant and delivered the said cheque to the complainant.           

            That the complainant presented the cheque for payment on 16/07/2013, 27/07/2013 and lastly on 05/08/2013 through his banker but the cheque has been returned back by the banker of the Ops with a remark insufficient fund and the said cheque was returned to the complainant by his banker.

            That thereafter the complainant informed the Ops that the said cheque has not been honored by their bank and requested them to make payment the maturity amount of Rs. 7,92,000/ against the aforesaid bond.

            That having got no response from the Ops, the complainant issued legal demand notice to the accused by his appointed Ld. Advocate through registered post withy A/D, posted on 27/08/2013 requesting the Ops to made payment of the said cheque amount of Rs. 7,92,000/ to him but in spite of service of said notice upon the Ops Nos. 1 and 2 the Ops did not made payment of the maturity amount till this date.

 

That there after the complainant requested several time to the Ops and lastly on 03/12/2016 he met with Amal Bhattacharya, managing director of OP No. 1 requested to make payment the maturity amount of the said bond but he did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.

            Having no other alternative the complainant has come to the Forum/Commission for proper relief. OP No. 1,2 and 3 received the notice and they appeared and prayed for time for filing written version on 01/02/2019 order No. 21 but there after backed out from the case, and as such, the case was heard exparte against the all Ops on 23/10/2019. That thereafter that the OP No. 2 Amal Bhattacharya appeared and filed W.V and after hearing the W.V petition the petition will be rejected as well as the case has been run exparte against all Ops.

            The complainant Tarun Kumar Sadhu filed evidence on affidavit with document on 15/01/2020 order No. 28. That there after the Ld. Advocate of the complainant filed a petition and said that evidence on affidavit of the complainant will be treated as W.N.A. Considered and prayer is allowed.

            Upon pleading of the parties the following points are to be considered for discussion of the case.

Point for determination/Issues.

1. Whether the complaint is a Consumer or not?
2. Whether this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to try this Case?
3. Whether there in any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the point of the OP?
4. Whether the complaint is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

            All the above 4 issues are taken up together for the sake of convince of consideration. During the trial the complainant Tarun Kr. Sadhu has examined himself and submitted some documents in support of this case.

            Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Point No. 1:- Evidently the complainant purchased some bonds depositing sum of Rs. 7,20,000/(total) form the Ops with assurance of return with appreciation value of Rs. 7,92,000/ from  4 bonds and closing date of agreement will be  22/03/2013.

          So, the complainant is a Consumer U/S 38 of the C.P Act 2019.

Point No. 2: Total Valuation of the case is Rs. 7,20,000/ which is for that maximum limit of the pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission i.e. Rs. 1, 0000000/.

            The OP Unix Infrustructure Ltd. and other office within jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission.

            So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial Jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other. It is proved from the documents filed by the complaint that he has deposited 4 investment in a month amounting to Rs. 15,000/ each therefore he paid of Rs. 60,000/ per month to the Ops company. The complaint further continued to pay such amount month by month in a total year there by it is seen that he has paid Rs. 7,20,000/ in a year from the date of 23/02/2012 to 22/03/2013.

            This is admitted fact that the complainant purchased some bonds depositing sum of Rs. 7,20,000/ from the OP with assurance of the from 4 bonds and also closing date of against will be 22/03/2013.

           

 

 

After receiving the aforesaid amount against the bond issued 4 certificates vide application No. R134553 to R 134556 dated 23/03/2012 of Rs. 1,98,000/ for each certificate as return with application value of Rs. 7,92,000/ in total in a year from the date of 23/02/2012 to 22/03/2013.

            The Ops considering the claim of the complainant in order to repay the maturity amount, issued a cheque vide No. 676121 dated 16/05/2013 of Rs. 7,92,000/ in favour of the complainant and delivered to the complaint .

            This is the admitted fact that the complainant presented the cheque for payment on 16/07/2013, and 27/07/2013 and lastly on 05/08/2013 through is banker but the cheque has been returned back by the banker of the Ops with a remark “insufficient fund” and the said cheque was returned to the complaint by his banker. That there after the complainant informed the Ops that the said cheque has not been honored by their bank and requested them to make payment the maturity amount of Rs. 7,92,000/ against the aforesaid bond.

            So that aforesaid act of the OP is amounting to beach of contact as well as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

            All the issues are thus decided in favour of the complainant but in the following manners.

                        Hence, it is,    

                        O R D E R E D,

that the instant C.F Case No. CC/13/2017 be and same is allowed exparte against the Ops in part with cost Rs. 2000/.

All the Ops are here by jointly and severally directed to pay of Rs. 7,92,000/ with 5% P.A with shall be calculated from the date of maturity till realization. Ops are further jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/ and the cost of the proceeding as noted above.

All such payment shall be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure as per C.P Act. 2019.

Let a copy of this final order be given/handed over to the Petitioner and to all the Op separately by post free of cost at once.

The instant case is thus disposed of.