BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th NOVEMBER 2015
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 419/2014
(Admitted on 15.11.2014)
Mr. Juliana Rodrigues
Aged about 63 years,
W/o. Mr. John Mascarenhas
Residing at “Jillden”, Sirlapadpu,
Kulshekar,
Mangalore 575 005. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Smt Manjula N.A)
VERSUS
1. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited,
Regd Office: 850,
Shivalik Enclave,
NAC Manimajra,
Chandigarh 160 101
Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Mr. Himanshu Jain,
Director,
Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.,
SCO 850,NAC, Manimajra,
Chandigarh 160 101.
3. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.,
Ground Floor, Mahendra Arcade,
Kodialbail, Mangalore 575 003,
Represented by Sudhakar Bhat. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 : Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, wherein the complainant alleges deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Opposite Party No. 3 is the authorized agent of Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 is incharge of Opposite Party No. 1. That, the complainant is the customer of Opposite Party No. 3, through its agent opposite party No. 1 induced the complainant to invest a sum of 3,00,000/ (Rupees Three lakhs only) for a period of one year. It was promised by Opposite Party No. 3 on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 that on the maturity date, the complainant would be entitled to the amount including interest which would total up to Rs. 3,36,000/ (Rupees Three lakhs thirty six thousand only) being the principal and interest towards the said deposit.
The complainant submits that, the opposite parties issued deposit certificate bearing F.D.R. No. 218813 and that, opposites has promise that, the end of one year the maturity rate with interest would amount to Rs. 3,36,000/-. The complainant submits that the said amount was deposited on 03.10.2012 and was due on 02.10.2013.
It is state that, at the end of the maturity period Opposite Party No. 2 had issued two cheques to the complainant one containing a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ bearing cheque No. 211773 drawn on HDFC Bank, Aptar Branch and another cheque of Rs. 36,000/ (Rupees Thirty Six thousand only) bearing cheque No. 211587 drawn on HDFC Ban, Aptar Branch. That Opposite Party No. 2 had also assured the complainant that there were sufficient funds in the said account and the cheques could be presented for drawing. That, the complainant had received the said cheques in good faith as Opposite Party No. 2 had assured the complainant that the same will be honoured if presented. Believing the words of Opposite Party No. 2, the complainant in good faith had presented the said cheques bearing No. 211587 and 211773 for a total of Rs. 3,36,000/- for clearance through her Banker and the same was returned with an endorsement insufficient funds on 07.10.2013. Thereafter the complainant requested opposite parties to refund the amount but, the opposite parties failed to refund the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence the above complainant field U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of Rs. 3,36,000/ along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the realization to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D. In spite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite parties. The acknowledgment marked as court Document No. 1 to 3.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mrs Juliana Rodrigues (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C8. Opposite Parties ex parte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iv): The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C 1 to C 8. The Ex C-1 cheque dated 26.9. 2012 issued by opposite party. The Ex C 2 and 3 are the memo issued by the banker stating that, there is no sufficient funds and Ex C 4 to 8 are the letter and legal notice issued by the complainant to opposite parties. Ex C-5 is the deposit receipt issued by Ind- Swift Laboratories. The above documents reveals that the complainant invested certain some of i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/ with the opposite parties on 03.10.2013. The opposite parties agreed to pay interest at the rate of 11.5% p.a i.e. Rs. 3,36,000/ on maturity i.e. dated 02.10.2013. It could be seen that, the opposite parties issued a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/ and another cheque for Rs. 36,000/ came to be dishonored.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, the Complainant deposited the money under the Fixed Deposit Receipt with the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties in-turn agreed to refund the amount along with the interest on the date of maturity mentioned in the F.D. Receipt. We are of the considered opinion that, in a case of like this nature reciprocal promises were enshrined in the contract/certificate entered/issued between the parties, both the parties were obliged to perform in that ‘Order’. No doubt the Complainant invested certain sum of money under the Fixed Deposit Receipt for a particular period with the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties in-turn received the invested amount from the Complainant and agreed to refund the aforesaid amount along with the interest on the date of maturity. When that being so, it is the obligation on the part of the Opposite Parties refund the amount to the Complainant on the date of maturity because the Opposite Parties made use of the money pertaining to the Complainant and agreed to refund the amount with interest. When that being the position, the Opposite Parties should have refunded the amount to the Complainant. It is seen on record that, the opposite parties issued a cheque towards payment the same came to be returned as Insufficient Funds in this case. Therefore, we hold that, the opposite parties failed to pay the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
Apart from the above the opposite parties in-spite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case. That the entire evidence placed by the complainant not contradicted nor controverted by the opposite parties. That, the unrebutted evidence requires no further proof. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant and also pay adequate damages for the inconvenience caused to complainant.
By considering the above aspect, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay ₹ 3,36,000/ to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of maturity to till the date of payment and further pay Rs. 3,000/ as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay ₹ 3,36,000/ to the complainant along with interest @ 12% from the date of maturity to till the date and further pay Rs. 3,000/ as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31ST day of AUGUST 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Mrs Juliana Rodrigues Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : 26.09.2012 Cheque No. 234599
Ex. C2 : 07.10.2013 Return Memo report.
Ex. C3 : 07.10.2013 Return Memo report.
Ex. C4 : 06.02.2014 Letter issued by complainant to
the Opposite Party No. 2
Ex. C5: 03.10.2012 Deposit receipt issued
by Ind-Shift Laboratories Ltd.
Ex. C6: 22.07.2014 Office of the lawyer’s notice
Ex. C7: Postal receipts.
Ex.C8: Postal acknowledgments.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 30.11.2015. PRESIDENT (SMT. ASHA SHETTY) D.K. District Consumer Forum Mangalore.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay ₹ 3,36,000 to the complainant along with interest @ 12% from the date of maturity to till the date and further pay Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of NOVEMBER 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
