Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member
Instant complaint has been filed u/s 17(1)(A)(i) of the C.P Act, 1986. The fact of the case, in short, was that the Petitioner being convinced by the agent/representative of the Opposite Parties, had taken one time investment scheme for product booking in advance. The Petitioner accordingly purchased three Accounts of Debentures for product booking, the details of which are shown below.
Serial No. 1 @ Rs.2,00,000/-(2000 Debentures of Rs.100/- each) purchased on 22.08.2012 Reg. Folio No. KOL; Certificate No. RPS017321/9 Years, Redemption Value on 22.08.2021 is Rs. 12,00,000/-. Serial No. 2, @ Rs. 4,00,000/-(4000 Debentures of Rs. 100/- each) purchased on 14.09.2012 Reg. Folio No. KOL; Certificate No. RPS017328/9 Years, Redemption Value on 14.09.2021 is Rs. 24,00,000/-. Serial No. 3, @ Rs.15,00,000/-(15000 Debentures of Rs.100/- each) purchased on 22.08.2012 Reg. Folio No. KOL; Certificate No. RPS017317/9 Years, Redemption Value on 22.08.2021 is Rs. 90,00,000/-
Because of his unforeseen retirement and also being not able to cope up with the need of money, the Petitioner realized that he would not be able to wait till the year 2021 for the desired return out of the above mentioned debentures. He communicated to the Opposite Party’s corporate office praying for refund of the value of the debentures as on date on submission of all money receipts, certificates and relevant documents. The said communication was returned to the Petitioner without the same being served upon the Opposite Party’s corporate office. The Petitioner then contacted the local branch office of the Opposite Party with the same prayer but, the said office, without taking the appropriate step to address the issue arising out of a critical situation that the Petitioner was facing at the relevant point of time, advised him to take shelter of the appropriate Commission.
Seeing the reluctance and unprofessional attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner got scared about the loss of his hard earned money and preferred to file the complaint before this Commission.
The complaint was heard ex parte against the OPs. Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the Complainant, in his brief submission, prayed for refund of the value of the debentures as on date in the same lines as it was narrated in the complaint petition.
He, in the context narrated above, cited the decision of this Commission in Complaint Case No. CC/101/2018 dated 27.12.2019 wherein complaint was allowed ex parte with the direction to refund the premature MIS value and mature recurring product value with interest and cost as narrated therein within 90 days from the date of the said order. The Ld. Advocate prayed for allowing the complaint in the lines of the said order.
Perused the papers on record and considered submissions of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant.
The decision of this Commission in the Complaint Case No.CC/101/2018, as referred to by the Ld. Advocate, did not appear to be squarely applicable to the instant issue. The said complaint appeared to be related to Monthly Instalment Scheme (MIS) and Recurring Deposit Scheme when the instant complaint was related to debentures.
We may, in this regard, state that ‘debentures’ is not considered as goods either as per definition of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 or that of MRTP Act, 1969.
The Hon’ble Apex Court’s observation, in RD Goyal and Anr.—Vs—Reliance Industries Limited, (2003) I SCC 81 narrated hereunder would clarify the matter. As observed therein, “Debentures, as ordinarily understood, in our considered view, would not come within the purview of definition of goods as it is simply an instrument of acknowledgment of debt by the company whereby it undertakes to pay the amount covered by it and till then it undertakes further to pay interest thereon to the debenture-holders”.
Bowing before the above
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are constrained to take a negative view in respect of maintainability of the case. The subject matter, in our views, does not come within the purview of the C.P Act, 1986 and accordingly, it requires to be summarily dismissed. Hence, Ordered that the complaint is dismissed. The petitioner, however, is given liberty to agitate his case before the appropriate Court of law.