State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Vijay Raj, vs Mail Orders Share Shoppe, on 20 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 20-03-2008 Complaint NO.C-341/1999 Dr. Vijay Raj, R/o. 19/51, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Complainant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate Versus 1. M/s. Mail Orders Share Shoppe, 421, Ansal Chamber-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. 2. Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Chairman, Hoffland Agro Limited, R/o. B-2/54, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. 3. Lt. Col. Naresh K. Vahul, Chief Manager, M/s. Mail Orders Share Shoppe, 421, Ansal Chamber-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. . Opposite Parties CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. WHETHER REPORTERS OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS BE ALLOWED TO SEE THE JUDGMENT?
2. TO BE REFERRED TO THE REPORTER OR NOT?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. Opposite Party (in short O.P) No.1 - Company is carrying on their business under the name and style of Mail Orders Share Shoppe, of which O.P. 2 and O.P. 3 are the Chairman and Chief Manager respectively. O.P. invited fixed deposits with their company from public at large on the promise of payment of interest @24% with the minimum deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and no limit on maximum deposit. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs. 5.00 Lac for a period of one year with the O.P-company. In turn the O.P-company issued interest warrants of Rs. 10,000/- each for 12 months. Though initially the interest warrants were paid but later on the O.P-company failed to honour them and kept on deferring the payment. Even after maturity of the deposit on 15-02-1998 of the initial deposit, the O.Ps kept on delaying the payment on one pretext or the other. As per the complainant, non-payment of deposit by O.Ps under the scheme floated by the O.P-company is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant, through this Complaint has sought the following reliefs:-
i) Refund of initial deposit/investment along with interest amounting to Rs. 9,40,000/-
ii) Pendente-lite interest @24% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
iii) Rs. 2.00 Lac as compensation for mental agony suffered at the hands of the O.Ps.
iv) Cost of proceedings.
3. While O.P. 1 and 3 have been proceeded ex-parte for non-appearance in spite of proper service, O.P.2 appeared and denied any deficiency in service on his part and contended that he was neither the proprietor, director nor a shareholder of the O.P-company and has nothing to do with the O.P-company.
4. The complainant has produced and proved the following documents in support of the claim of having deposited a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lac towards FDR as well as the O.P. having issued Interest Warrants of Rs. 10,000/- each for 12 months:-
i) Receipt No. 6633 dated 22-01-1997 showing deposit of Rs. 5.00 Lac.
ii) Revalidated receipt No. 6351 for principal warrant bearing No. 9318 dated 15-02-1998.
iii) Interest warrant bearing S. No. 9478 dated 15-11-1997. iv) Interest warrant bearing S. No. 9479 dated 15- 11-1997. v) Interest warrant bearing S. No. 9480 dated 15- 11-1997. vi) Interest warrant bearing S. No. 9481 dated 15- 11-1997. vii) Copy of complaint lodged with Company Law Board, New Delhi. viii) Copy of Legal Notice dated 21-9-1999 seeking payment of Rs. 9.4 Lac. 5.
None of the O.Ps has produced any document to show that they were neither proprietors nor directors or shareholders. The deficiency in service is writ large on the face of record.
6. In terms of Sec. 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quantity, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the service provider.
7. On the strength of the aforesaid documents, as well as the circumstances of having issued interest warrants of Rs. 10,000/- each for 12 months, we allow the complaint in the following terms:-
i) O.P shall pay Rs. 5.00 Lac towards actual deposit with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the date of this order. ii) O.P. shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. 8. Complaint
stands disposed of in above terms.
Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of these orders.
9. Copy of Orders, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK