Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3693
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rajes Guha Ray, Judicial Member, Santanu Saha, Member
Moumita Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Piyali Dhali – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/691/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Moumita Biswas, Barun Prasad, Subrata Mandal, P.K. Majumder
For the Respondents: Piyali Dhali, Ranjit Koley, Anjali Naskar, Rabin Naskar, Dipak Kr Biswas, Sabita Gayen, Gopal Gayen, Sulekha Dutta, Shikha Mondal, Mithun Dhali
A joint consumer complaint is maintainable without seeking prior formal permission under the Consumer Protection Act if the complainants share a common grievance; however, the failure to implead necessary corporate entities as parties in an investment-related dispute renders the complaint defective.
Headnote:The case involves a dispute regarding the investment of funds in fixed-term instruments issued by a marketing service company, where investors expected 'Money Bonds' but were instead issued 'Redeemable Preference Shares'. The complainants alleged deficiency in service when maturity values were not disbursed. The primary issues were the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the status of the complainants as consumers, and the non-joinder of necessary corporate entities. The court determined that consumers may file a joint complaint without requiring prior permission under S.12(1)(c) when grievances are common. Regarding the maintainability, the court held that the Consumer Protection Act is supplemental to other laws and not barred by SEBI regulations unless specifically excluded. However, the court found the original complaint flawed due to inadequate pleadings and the failure to implead the specific company that issued the preference shares. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside to allow the complainants an opportunity to rectify the defects in their complaint.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and initial contentions of parties regarding maintainability and non-joinder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. interpretation of 'consumer' status, concurrent jurisdiction, and requirements for joint complaint filings under the consumer protection act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of evidentiary gaps, necessary parties, and the decision to allow remediation of pleadings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
Mr Rajes Guha Ray, Judicial Member
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 passed by Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (presently renamed as DCDRC), Kolkata Unit- III (South) in Consumer complaint Case No. CC/311/2018.
The respondent no. 1 to 10 have contested this appeal and it has been heard ex parte against the respondent no. 11.
2. The back drop of the appeal is that present respondent nos. 1 to 10 being complainant deposited some amounts on 5 years Money Bonds issued by the Adorable Agrotech Ltd. and Adorable Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. On 14.10.2011 and 05.11.2011 and on maturity said bonds have been deposited by the complainants with the office of the appellant namely Moumita Biswas (Dutta), Director of Adorable Agrotech Ltd. and the respondent no. 11 i.e. Adorable Marketing Service Pvt. For disbursement of maturity value amounting to Rs. 1,23,000/- in the manner mentioned in the complaint petition. On several occasions the complainant they visited and office of the O.P. no. 1 requested her for disbursement of the maturity value but of no result. Hence the case filed by them praying for their respective maturity values being a total of Rs. 1,23,000/-, for compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
2.1 The O.Ps including the appellant contested that case by filing written version inter alia contending that the complainant is not maintainable, it has been filed without taking leave of the Ld. Forum under Section 12 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ld. Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complainant, the complainants are not consumers etc.
It is contended that the O.P. no. 1 is the Ex-Director of Adorable Agrotech Ltd., a Limited Company. On 17.10.2011 and 08.12.2011 said Adorable Agrotech Limited issued Preference Shares to Adorable Agency Private Limited. Subsequent thereto the complainant applied for transfer of Preference Shares of Adorable Agrotech Ltd. and upon payment said Adorable Agency Private Limited duly transferred the said Preference Shares on different dates in favour of the complainants.
The O.P. no. 1 resigned from Directorship of Adorable Agrotech Ltd. in 2010 and presently she has no relation with the Company and she has been wrongly impleaded.
It is further contended that the complaint has been instituted by one Mithun Dhali as an authorised person for self and on behalf of other nine complainants, but no authorisation letter or any Power of Attorney has been disclosed with the complainant. The complainant has been filed by ten persons without asking any leave from the Learned Forum under sub section (c) of section 12 of said Act though they have no common cause of action.
The redeemable Preference Shares are instruments and transferable and not consumable items and as such the complainants are not consumers etc. So, the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the case.
3. The Learned Forum below framed the following issues/points for determination in the case-
1. whether the case is maintainable before the Forum.
2. whether there is a deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP.
3. whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for.
4. After a contested hearing of the case the Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest without cost directing the opposite parties to disburse redemption value of the certificates to the respective complainants within two months from
