IMPORTANT POINT
Complainants who availed services of opposite party for investing their savings in schemes floated by opposite party, are consumers within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The opposite party Shivaji Estate Livestock & Farms Pvt. Ltd., invited the potential investors to invest in its Goat Farming and allied activities by purchasing units of several schemes floated by it. In the Brochure issued by it, the said opposite party represented to the prospective investors, inter-alia that they had arranged about 500 goats in each goat shed with 25-50 such sheds in each rearing centre; 100% of the live stocks would be insured and there would be 100% guarantee of the invested amount. It was also represented to them that the investors would have hypothetical charge on 1000 sq. ft. of land of the company and one time investment would offer consistent benefit for fifteen years, live stocks would be looked after by the experienced Vets and Professionals. The opposite party offered attractive returns on the capital invested in the units sold by it. It is alleged that the opposite party represented to the complainants that there would be minimum expected return on the investment made by them and if the targets are achieved, they would also get additional bonus. The schemes also provided for pre-mature withdrawals by giving 45 days’ notice. The case of the complainants, who number as many as 373 is that in view of the attractive schemes offered by the opposite party, they invested their hard-earned savings into those schemes.

Initially, the opposite party made payment of some instalments due to the investors under the said schemes but later on they did not fulfil the terms made by them. When the investors applied for pre-mature withdrawal of the investment made by them, the opposite party failed to honour its commitment. Alleging deficiency in the services offered by the opposite party, they are before this Commission with the following prayers:

“a) To refund to the complainants their original investments along with the promised interest/returns as shown in the Ex-A;

b) To pay to the complainants compensation @ 25% of the original amounts invested, for causing considerable mental agony, hardships, and inconvenience, with further interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of filing this complaint;

c) To pay to the complainants cost of Rs.500/- each for pursuing this complaint”.

2. No opposite party, except opposite party No.3, filed a reply. Opposite party No. 3 is a Director of opposite party No.1. However, the name of opposite party No.2 and 3 were later deleted by this Commission, from the array of the respondents. The opposite party took a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions contained in Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPID Act’) this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the aforesaid Act provides a complete machinery for recovery of the deposits made by the investors. It is also stated in the reply that a complaint was lodged against the opposite parties by one Meena Jayant Kulkarni with the C.B.C.I.D., Mumbai and an FIR was registered on the basis of the said complaint. A charge sheet was thereafter, filed against the company and nine others, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act. The prosecution, pursuant to the aforesaid complaint is pending before the Designated Court. However, no averment made in the complaint has been disputed in the reply.

3. In their affidavits by way of evidence, the complainants have stated on Oath the case set out in the complaint and have also proved the documents evidencing deposit with the opposite party No.1 in the schemes floated by it. Even otherwise, neither the floating of the schemes nor the deposits claimed by the complainants have been disputed in the reply filed by the opposite party.

4. The salient features of the scheme floated by the opposite party; as contained in the Brochure issued by the said opposite party were as under:

“A golden opportunity to multiply your invest