STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 127 OF 2017
AGAINST
CC 516 OF 2016, DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between :
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Viswakarma
S/o Ltd. Col. (Dr.) V. Vishwakarma,
407, D.V. Apartments, Salarjung colony
Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam – Tolichowki Road
Hyderabad – 500 008. … Appellant/complainant
And
- M/s. Jaypee Infratech Limited ( Jaypee Group)
Rep. by its Executive Chairman and CEO,
Sri Manoj Gaur, Occ : Business
Registered office : F.D. Section, Jaypee Group
Sector 128, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar
Naoida, UP. 201 304
- M/s. Link Intime India Pvt.Ltd
Unit : Jaiprakash Infratech Limited
C-13 Pannalal silk Mills Compound
L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup ( West)
Mumbai – 400 078.
- M/s. Karvi Stock Broking Limited
Rep. by its Director, Occ : Employee
Karvi Centre, 8-2-609/K, Avenue 4,
Street No.1, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 500034
( Formal party, not necessary ) ..Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants : party- in – person.
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri B. Srinivasa Rao for R-1 and R-2
R3 – not necessary party.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Twentieth Day of November
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 made in CC 516of 2016 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -II, Hyderabad and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaints before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is an un-employed and has no source of income and to feed himself from the interest amount he invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- vide FDR No. 70020 dated 25.07.2013 for three years with the date of maturity as on 24.07.2016, interest @ 12.50% and the maturity value was Rs.7,26,100/- with the opposite parties 1 and 2. Thereafter, he sent FDR to the first opposite party through the third opposite party. But the first opposite party did not repay the same despite reminders and persuasion. He received letter dated 24.03..2015 from the first opposite party that their case is pending before the Company Law Board and FDR amount would be paid by 31th March, 2016. Under Rule 17 of the Companies ( Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 that , “ Company shall pay a penal rate of interest of 18% pa for the overdue period, in case of deposits, remaining unpaid”. The opposite parties delaying payment of deposits on some pretext or the other. The acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the matured amount along with delayed rate of interest @ 18% pa, compensation and costs.
4) Notices served on the opposite parties but they did not evidence any interest to advance arguments or filing the written arguments within the stipulated time.
5). During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-6. Heard the complainant. He also filed written arguments.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the matured amount of Rs.7,26,100/- ( as on dated 24.07.2016), along with subsequent interest @ 9% pa on Rs.7,26,100/- from 24.07.2016 till realization and costs of Rs.5,000/- within 40 days. The claim against the third opposite party was dismissed.
7) Dis-satisfied with the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along-with written arguments. Heard.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant has invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for three years to pay with interest @ 12.50% pa on 25.07.2013 and the maturity amount was Rs.7,26,100/- with the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 through the third opposite party broker. There is no dispute that the FDR was presented to the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 for repayment of matured amount. There is also no dispute that the repayment date was postponed from time to time. There is also no dispute that the matured amount was not paid along with interest. The District Forum directed the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the matured amount with interest @9% pa and costs of Rs.5,000/- each.
11) The main contention of the appellant/complainant is that he is entitled to the matured amount along with interest @ 18% pa for the delayed period and the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 playing the game under the Umbrella of Company Law Board in repaying the amount delaying from time to time. In support of their contention they relied on Rule 17 of Companies( Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2013, which, states that “ Company shall pay a penal rate of interest of 18% pa for the overdue period in case of deposits remaining unpaid”. Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 argued that keeping in view the progress made by the Company in repayment of deposits and continuous efforts being made by it including the route of divestment of Company’s assets for the purpose of repayment, the erstwhile Hon’ble Company Law Board as per its order dated 31.05.2016 granted time up to 31.03.2017, for repayment of fixed deposits which had fallen due after 31.03.2016 and further it was extended till 30.06.2017, Even, if we consider the date mentioned by the respondents 1 and 2, it was already elapsed long ago. It is not the case of the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 that the Company Law Board directed them to evade the deposits of the consumers, but, it extended time to facilitate them for some time to repay the same, but, not years together. It appears the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 chose to drag on the matter on the pretext of Company Law Board. In view of the above rule position, the appellant/complainant is entitled to the matured amount of Rs.7,26,100/- along with interest @ 18% pa from the due date , i.e., 24.07.2016.
12). The further contention of the appellant is that he is entitled for compensation for mental agony and in that regard they have relied on the decision of the Hon’ ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 15 SCC 540 wherein the Apex Court upheld 74% compensation amount over the principal amount. It reveals from the above facts that the respondents/ opposite parties 1 and 2 did not refund the deposits made by the appellant as promised despite many persuasions and even after legal battle which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
13). The contention of the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 that the Consumer Fora have no territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted since their branch office was located at Hyderabad.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant and the respondents /opposite parties 1 and 2, this Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant is entitled to the matured amount of Rs.7,26,100/-with interest @ 18% from 24.07.2016 along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum -II, Hyderabad dated 23.02.2017 in CC 516 of 2016 is modified and the respondents/opposite parties 1and 2 are directed to refund the matured amount of 7,26.100/-with interest @ 18% pa from 24.07.2016 till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 20.11.2017
