COMMON JUDGEMENT<br /> <br /> The complainants in these Two cases have filed separate complaints U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the common Respondents- (1) M/s. VINIV-INC (Venus-v), by its Managing Director Mr. Srinivas Shastry Bangalore and (2) VINIV-INC branch Office Raichur by its Agent and Authorised Signatory Mr. Yadunath Kolar. The complaints of the complainants being common in nature seeking similar relief of refund of money so they are clubbed and disposed of by common judgement.<br /> <br /> 2. The complaints of both complainants being common in nature reads as under:-<br /> Each complainant in the above said Two cases have invested certain amount with Respondent No-1/firm by purchasing DD of various banks on different dates for which the Respondents have given Receipt-Cum-Investment Certificates to the respective complainants for the said deposited/invested amount and have agreed to pay interest thereon as mentioned in respective certificates. The amount of investment made by each complainant is as under:-<br /> <br /> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. D.D./Cheque No. and date Amount invested/deposited<br /> 1. 2. 3.<br /> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> 1. complainant- Syed Aleemuddin in DCFR No.154/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 16-01-2005. Rs. 50,000=00<br /> 2. On 21-02-2005. Rs. 50,000=00<br /> 3. On 07-03-2005. Rs.1,00,000=00<br /> ----------------------<br /> Total Rs. 2,00,000=00<br /> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> 2 complainant- Syed. Nizamuddin in DCFR No. 155/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 06-04-2005. Rs 20 ,000=00<br /> 2. On 06-04-2005. Rs. 20,000=00<br /> -----------------------<br /> Total Rs. 40,000=00<br /> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> <br /> On 11-07-05 the complainants in all cases gave withdrawal requisition to the 2nd Respondent along with original/copies of Receipt-Cum-Investment Certificates for withdrawal of their deposit amount requesting him to close their respective accounts and pay back/refund their entire deposited/ invested amount together with up to date interest thereon as they were in need of money for family necessities, but the Respondents failed to repay the same. In the meantime the complainants came to know that the Respondents have duped the public/depositors and thus caused loss to them. The Respondents are bound to repay the deposited amount on demands together with up to date of interest as agreed upon. The act and attitude of the Respondents amount to deficiency of service. The complainants waited for a considerable time with a profound hope that the Respondents would repay their deposited amount with interest but all in vain. Therefore on 28-09-06 the complainant in the first case and on 10-10-06 the complainant in the 2nd case got issued legal notice through their Advocate to both the Respondents by RPAD. Again they got issued another notice on 09-11-06 by RPAD. The notices returned duly served. Despite the service of legal notice both Respondents have failed and neglected to repay the deposited sum to the complainants together with upto date interest. The failure of Respondents in not making payment of such deposit is a case of grave deficiency of service.<br /> Both complainants have been suffering both mentally and physically as the Respondents have failed to repay the deposited sum so they are put to great loss on account of economic crisis in the family. Hence for all these reasons both complainants have prayed for a direction to the Respondents to refund/pay back their respective deposited/invested amount along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and further direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, torture & harassment etc., with cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> 3. In-response to service of notice to Respondent NO-1 sent by RPAD to his present address as UTP.No. 3666 Central Prison Parapanna Agrahara Bangalore, there was no representations by Respondent NO-1 either through his authorized agent or lawyer. So Respondent NO-1 has been placed Ex-parte. Similarly the notice issued to Respondent No.2 to his present address Vasavi Nagar Raichur, returned un-served “as door locked” as per postal endorsement. Subsequently the notice were issued in both cases to Respondent No-2 by hand at the request of the complainants. In response to service of notice by hand the Respondent No-2 remained absent when called So this Respondent No-2 also has been placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. During the course of enquiry the respective complainants have filed their sworn affidavit as evidence and got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6 in the first case and (4) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-4 in the 2nd case.<br /> <br /> 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respective complainants and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants in these Two cases prove deficiency in service by both the Respondents in not making payment of their respective invested/deposited amount together with agreed rate of interest in-spite of their repeated demands, as alleged?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the respective complainants are entitled for the relief sought for by each of them?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. In the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainants in both cases that they have invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, 40,000/-, respectively with Respondents Firm by way of DD on different dates for which the Respondents have given Receipts-Cum-Certificates to them in respect of said invested amount agreeing to repay the same with agreed interest thereon as mentioned in the respective Investment Certificates. It is also their case that on 11-07-05 the complainant in both cases gave withdrawal requisition to the 2nd Respondent along with original/copies of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates requesting to close their respective accounts and pay back/refund their entire deposited amount together with up to date agreed interest thereon. But the Respondents failed to repay the same. In the meantime the complainants came to know that the Respondents have duped the people/depositors. After waiting considerable time with a profound hope, finally on 28-09-06 the complainant in the first case and on 10-10-06 the complainant in the 2nd case got issued legal notice through their Advocate to both the Respondents by RPAD. Again they got issued another notice on 09-11-06 by RPAD the notice returned duly served. Despite the service of legal notice both Respondents failed and neglected to repay the deposited sum to them together with upto date interest. The failure of the Respondents in not making repayment of deposited amount with interest amounts to deficiency of service by Respondents due to which both complainants suffered both mentally and physically and they are put to great loss on account economic crisis in the family.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainants have filed attested copy of Receipts-cum-Investments-Certificates for their respective invested amount as detailed in the table at para-2 of the judgement and same are marked as Ex.P-1 to P-3 in the first case and Ex.P-1 in the 2nd case. Both the complainants have filed office copy of legal notice issued to both the Respondents calling for them to refund their deposited amount along with interest which are at Ex.P-4 in the first case and Ex.P-2 in the 2nd case respectively. They have also produced Postal acknowledgement of service of legal notice on Respondents and they are at Ex.P-5 & P-6 in the first case and Ex.P-3 & P-4 in the 2nd case respectively. <br /> <br /> 9. As stated above, the notice issued by this Forum to Respondent NO-1 to his present address as UTP 3666 Central Prison Parapanna Agarahar Bangalore returned duly served vide postal acknowledgement but neither authorized agent nor counsel represented for Respondent No-1 UTP.No. 3666. Hence he has been placed Ex-parte. Similarly the notice issued to Respondent NO-2 by RPAD by this Forum returned as ‘Refused’ vide postal endorsement so holding the service as sufficient against Respondent No-2, and as he remained absent when called out so Respondent No-2 was also placed Ex-Parte Hence both the Respondents are Ex-parte in this case.<br /> <br /> 10. From a close perusal of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates it amply shows that each complainant have invested/deposited amount as detailed in the table at Para-2 of the judgement with the Respondents who had agreed to repay the same with interest as mentioned in respective Receipt-Cum-Investments-Certificates. Both the complainants in their complaint Para-3 have averred that on 11-07-05 they had given Withdrawal requisition along with copies of certificates to Respondent No-2 requesting to close their accounts and pay back entire deposited amount together with interest upto date as they are in need of money for their family necessity. Both the complainants have produced office copy of legal notice at Ex.P-4 in the first case, & Ex.P-2 in the 2nd case. These legal notices go to show that they had given Withdrawal application in the prescribed forms along with copies of deposit certificates to Respondent No-2 requesting to close their accounts and pay back their deposited amount together with interest upto date. These legal notice have been served on both Respondents vide Postal Acknowledgements at Ex.P-5 & P-6 in the first case and Ex.P-3 & P-4 in the 2nd case. So it shows that Respondents failed to repay the said invested amount with agreed interest in spite of withdrawal application given to them. Even, the notice issued to Respondent NO-1 by this Forum to his present address as UTP.No. 3666 Central Prison Parapanna Agarahar Bangalore returned duly served but there was no representation on behalf of this Respondent No-1 and so he has been placed Ex-parte. Similarly the notice issued to Respondent No-2 by RPAD by this Forum returned as ‘Refused’ vide postal endorsement and holding the service as sufficient and this Respondent NO-2, as remained absent when called out so he was placed ex-parte. Hence these factors together go to show that the Respondents are deficient in service in not making payment of respective invested amount to the complainants along with agreed rate of interest and the conduct of the Respondents in remaining absent in the proceedings before this Forum in-spite of service of notice as stated above, shows that for the reasons best known to them they have remained absent and thereby it amounts to deficiency of service by the Respondents to the demands made by the complainants for refund of their deposited amount with interest. Therefore we hold that the complainants have proved deficiency in service by both the Respondents and so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 11. Both the complainants have sought for direction for refund of their deposited/invested amount along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and for awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental tension & harassment etc., together with cost of litigation. <br /> In view of our discussion and finding on point No-1 both the complainants are entitled for refund of their deposited/invested amount with agreed rate of interest from the date of investment till withdrawal application filed by them. Further they are entitled to interest at 10% p.a. on their invested amount from the date of withdrawal application till realization. As regard to awarding of compensation is concerned having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above we feel justification to allow a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Both the complaints are allowed in part.<br /> <br /> Both the Respondents jointly and severally shall refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant-Syed Aleemuddin; Rs.40,000/- to the complainant-Syed Nizamuddin respectively together with agreed interest from the date of deposit till date of the withdrawal application and further interest at 10% p.a. from the date of withdrawal application till realization on their respective invested amount. Respondents shall also to pay a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> Both the Respondents shall comply this order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum On 31-01-07.)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampannagouda, <br /> Member<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> On leave. <br /> Smt.Kavita Patil, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur<br />