National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bajaj Capital Ltd. & Anr. vs Shikha Gupta & Anr. on 20 April, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2313 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 13/05/2016 in Appeal No. 947/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. BAJAJ CAPITAL LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MEZZANINE FLOOR, 97, BAJAJ HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI-110019 2. BAJAJ CAPITAL LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER SONEPAT OPPOSITE OLD CIVIL HOSPITAL RAILWAY ROAD, SONIPAT HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIKHA GUPTA & ANR. D/O. JAI BHAGWAN GUPTA, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI JAI BHAGWAN GUPTA, R/O. HOUSE NO. 855/23, DEV NAGAR, NEAR SHIVA SHIKSHASADAN SCHOOL SONIPAT HARYANA 2. OMNITECH INFOSOLUTION LIMITED, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OMNITECH HOUSE A-13, CROSS ROAD, NO. 5, KONDIVITA LANE MAROL MIDC, ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI-400093 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 20 Apr 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondent-1
:
Mr. Jai Bhagwan Gupta, AR
For the Respondent-2
:
NEMO/ex-parte
PRONOUNCED ON : 20TH APRIL 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 13.05.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 947/2015, "Bajaj Capital & Anr. versus Shikha Gupta & Ors.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 16.09.2015, passed by the District Forum Sonepat in consumer complaint No. 117/2015, filed by the present respondent No.1, Shikha Gupta, d/o Jai Bhagwan Gupta, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Shikha Gupta, d/o Jai Bhagwan Gupta filed consumer complaint No. 117/2015 before the District Forum Sonepat, alleging that she deposited a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- on 28.09.2012 for a period of 12 months with the respondents as fixed deposit (FD) No. 1567 through cheque No. 0550351 dated 22.09.2012 of the IDBI Bank, Model Town, Sonepat. The said cheque was handed over to the Branch Manager, Bajaj Capital Limited, which was acting as broker for the OP-1/Respondent No. 2, Omnitech Infosolution Ltd.. The complainant was issued a fixed deposit receipt vide No. 1567 dated 20.10.2012 by the OP-1 Omnitech Infosolution Ltd., according to which the maturity date was 28.09.2013 and the maturity amount was Rs.1,25,444/-. When the maturity date for the said fixed deposit was approaching, the complainant submitted the fixed deposit receipt on 21.08.2013 at the branch office of Bajaj Capital, Sonepat, which was received by Mr. Nitin in their office. However, on the maturity date, she was told by the Sonepat office that they had sent the receipt to OP-1 through their head office at New Delhi, the OP-2, but they had not yet received the amount in question and hence, they were unable to make any payment to her. It is alleged that the OP-3 sent her a letter bearing No. 469 dated 29.09.2014, saying that they will obtain the amount very soon, but even after the expiry of a long period, her money was not given back to her. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to make payment of the maturity amount of Rs.1,25,444/- to her, alongwith a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment on account of deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. In their written reply filed before the District Forum, the OP-2 & 3 Bajaj Capital Limited stated that the complaint was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. They further stated that the amount had been invested in a Fixed Deposit Scheme of the OP-1, Omnitech Infosolution Ltd. and the role of the Bajaj Capital was to act as broker only. Moreover, the complainant had voluntarily made the said investment with the OP-1. The OP-2 &3, however, admitted that the complainant had visited their office at Sonepat with intention to avail the benefit of the Fixed Deposit Scheme. However, they had made it clear to the complainant that they were acting as broker only.
4. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed payment of Rs.1,25,444/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of its maturity, and held that all three respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to make the said payment. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP-2 & 3 Bajaj Capital challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide the impugned order, the OP-2 & 3 are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. During hearing, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant was not a consumer, vis-a-vis, the petitioners, because the investment of the said amount had been made with the OP-1 Omnitech Infosolution Ltd.. It was the duty of the OP-1/Respondent No. 2 to return the money to the complainant, whereas the role of the petitioner was only to act as broker for the service.
6. On behalf of the complainant, her father Jai Bhagwan Gupta appeared and handed-over a letter written by the Complainant Shikha Gupta, in which it has been stated that her father Jai Bhagwan Gupta had received retirement benefits of Rs.2,30,000/-, out of which, he invested a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- with the OP-1/Respondent No. 2 through Bajaj Capital, Sonepat. Even after the expiry of 3 to 4 years, their money had not been returned, neither the petitioner Bajaj Capital had extended any help to them. The complainant requested that the money deposited by her should be returned alongwith interest and compensation.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. It may be stated at the outset that M/s. Omnitech Infosolution Ltd., the OP-1/respondent No. 2 with whom the money is supposed to have been invested by the complainant, did not put in appearance before any of the consumer fora. They were proceeded against exparte by the District Forum. Even before this Commission, the said respondent-2/OP-1 did not put in appearance despite service. On the other hand, it is an admitted case of the parties that a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- belonging to the complainant (or her father) was invested in a Fixed Deposit scheme with Omnitech Infosolution Ltd. through the branch office of M/s. Bajaj Capital, Sonepat. The petitioners have admitted that the complainant filled the proposal form as well as handed over the amount in question at the office of the petitioners at Sonepat. Moreover, when the time of maturity came, the petitioners obtained the fixed deposit receipt in question from the complainant at Sonepat, but the amount in question was never returned to the complainant.
9. The petitioners have not been able to provide any reasonable explanation as to why they were not in a position to establish contact with the said OP and ensure that the money received from the complainant is duly returned to her.
10. The petitioners do admit that they were acting as broker for the said OP and have got the proposal form filled as well as accepted the money from the complainant. It was their duty, therefore, that they should have helped the complainant to get her money back, when the time of maturity came.
11. It is understood that the petitioners have their presence on all India basis, and as a responsible established company, it is their duty to look after the customers, for which they are providing their services as a broker. The contention raised by them that the complainant was not a consumer, vis-à-vis, them is without any reasonable basis. There is clear admission on their part that they provided their services to the complainant for the purpose of the investment in question. The complainant, therefore, does fall within the definition of 'consumer', in so far as the petitioners are concerned, and it is their duty to establish contact with the opposite party, Omnitech Infosolution Ltd. and to help the consumer in getting back the maturity amount from them with interest.
12. Based on the discussion above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, vide which liability has been imposed on the petitioners as well as the OP-1, Omnitech Infosolution Ltd., jointly and severally for the return of the maturity amount to the complainant alongwith interest. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the present revision petition, which is ordered to be rejected and the order passed by the Consumer Fora, upheld. In addition, a litigation cost of ₹20,000/- is further imposed on the petitioner for dragging the helpless consumer to avoidable litigation. The said amount shall be payable by the petitioners to the complainant within a period of four weeks from today.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER