AFTAB ISLAM Vs. GOFRAIN MOLLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist has come up against the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, whereby the complaint of the respondents in relation to the investments in deposit has been accepted, directing the payment of the investment together with 9% interest per annum and compensation has also been awarded together with interest.

(2.) The case as appears from the pleadings and the orders of the Forums below, unfold the pitiful story of petty investors who deposited their hard earned money in monetary schemes floated by the Investment Company in the year 2013. The default started accruing with effect from August, 2013. The complainants alleged that neither the principal amount nor the interest was paid after August 2013, consequently the reliefs claimed for in the complaint were accepted and finally allowed by the District Forum vide order dtd. 23/2/2014. The revisionist together with other opposite parties in the complaint, were directed jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount as well as the principal amount together with interest against which an appeal was preferred by the revisionist along with one Kasem Ali before the West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata. The plea taken by the revisionist was that he was nowhere connected with the investment company namely Viva Tourism Development Limited and that he was employed in Viva Consultancy Services for which reliance has been placed on the letter of appointment dtd. 25/6/2012. It is alleged that Viva Consultancy Services is an altogether different firm from the investment company, which is titled as Viva Tourism Development Limited and therefore the revisionist had no concern whatsoever with the dispute raised. Even otherwise the revisionist had resigned from the services on 30/8/2013 and even assuming for the sake of arguments that the default had occurred, the same commenced only after his resignation when the complaint was came to be filed in September 2013 alleging default in payments, thereafter. The contention is that till the revisionist was there, the investors had no complaint whatsoever of any default and therefore the revisionist's case stood on a different footing and no liability could be attributed to him.

(3.) The Forums below have come to the conclusion that the revisionist was an active commission agent in negotiating investments in favour of Viva Tourism Development Limited and was one of the conduits in the transaction. The revisionist was also one of the commission agents involved in convincing the hapless investors and his employment was a masked employment for the investment company itself in reality.