STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 175 of 2017
AGAINST
CC 170 of 2016, DISTRICT FORUM -1, 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.
- Mrs. Mohini Vishwakarma,
W/o Dr. Rajesh Kumar Viswakarma
Permanent address : C-4/297, Chetganj,
Varanasi 221 001 UP.
Presently resident of :
407, D.V. Apartments, Salarjung colony
Kakatiya Nagar, Mehdipatnam – Tolichowki Road
Hyderabad – 500 008.
..Appellants/complainants
And
- M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Limited ( Jaypee Group)
Rep. by its Executive Chairman and CEO,
Sri Manoj Gaur, Occ : Business
Registered office : F.D. Sectio, Jaypee Group
Sector 128, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar
Naoida, UP. 201 304
- The Branch Manager,
M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Limited ( Jaypee Group)
3rd floor, 3rd block, White House,
H.No. 6-3-1192/1/1, Begumpet
Hyderabad , Telangana 500 016.
- M/s. Karvi Stock Broking Limited
Rep. by its Director, Occ : Employee
Karvi Centre, 8-2-609/K, Aenue 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
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 praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 made in CC 170 of 2016 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -1, Hyderabad and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainants, in brief, is that they are un-employed and have no source of income and to feed themselves from the interest amount while ensuring that the principal amount remain secured, the first complainant invested an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide FDR No. 00536002 dated 09.06.2012 with the date of maturity as on 09.06.2015 with interest @ 12.50% pa and the second complainant invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- vide FDR No. 0054936 dated 09.09.2012 with the date of maturity as on 09.09.2015 with interest @ 12.50% pa with the guidance and assistance of the third opposite party company The FDRs were renewed. Thereafter, the FDRs were sent by them through the third opposite party to the first opposite party. But the first opposite party did not repay the same despite reminders and persuasion. They received letter dated 18.01.2016 from the first opposite party that their case is pending before the Company Law Board and repayment of the FDRs amount would be made within time permitted up to 30.06.2016 by the CLB. On the earlier occasion as well the Ops obtained three extensions from the CLB for repayment on 30.09.2015, 31.12.2015 and 30.06.2016. 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) The opposite party no. 3 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting the deposits of the amounts vide FDRs in question by the complainants and contended that the complainants are not ‘ consumers ’ , the third opposite party has only assisted the complainants in forwarding the necessary forms and reminders etc to the other opposite parties and at no point of time the complainants have paid any amount to them and the third opposite party is a mis-joinder to the present complaint. The District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against it.
5). The opposite parties 1 and 2 though served with notices did not choose to contest the matter.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the complainants filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-12. Heard the complainants and the OP.3
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,90,440/- with interest @ 12% pa from 08.06.2015 to the first complainant and Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 12% pa from 08.09.2015 till the date of realization and costs of Rs.5,000/- to each complainant. The claim against OP. 3 was dismissed.
8) Dis-satisfied with the said order, the complainants 1 and 2 preferred this appeal before this Commission.
9) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along-with written arguments.
10) 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 ?
11). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the first appellant/first complainant invested an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide FDR No. 00536002 dated 09.06.2012 with the date of maturity as on 09.06.2015 @ 12.50% and the second appellant/ second complainant invested an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- vide FDR No. 0054936 dated 09.09.2012 with the date of maturity as 09.09.2015 @ 12.50% with the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 through the third opposite party broker.. There is no dispute that the FDRs were presented to the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2 for repayment of matured amount. There is also no dispute that the repayment dates were 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 refund the amounts with interest @12% pa and costs of Rs.5,000/- each.
12) The main contention of the appellants/complainants is that they are entitled to the FDR amounts 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 amounts delaying from time to time. In support of their contention they relied on Rule 17 of Companies( Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, which, states that “ Company shall pay a penal rate of interest @ 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. Till date they did not choose to comply with the orders Company Law Board. 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. The District Forum though agreed the said amounts would attract penal rate of interest @ 18% pa for the overdue payments, it is not known as to why it awarded 12% rate of interest in the result. In view of the above rule position as opined by the District Forum, the first appellant/complainant is entitled to the matured amount of Rs.2,90,440/- with interest @ 18% pa from 09.06.2015 and the second appellant/complainant is entitled to the matured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% pa from 09.09.2015 instead of 12% interest as awarded by the District Forum.
13). The further contention of the appellants is that they are entitled for compensation for mental agony to them 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 appellants as promised despite many persuasions and even after legal battle which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
14). 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.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/complainants 1 and 2 and the respondents /opposite parties 1 and 2 this Commission is of the view that the appellants/complainants are entitled to the matured amounts with interest @ 18% from the delayed period along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony to each of the appellants/complainants along with costs of Rs.5,000/- each.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum -1, Hyderabad dated 03.04.2017 in CC 170 of 2016 is modified and the respondents/opposite parties 1and 2 are directed to refund the matured amount of Rs. Rs.2,90,440/- with interest @ 18% pa from 09.06.2015 till the date of realization to the first appellant/first complainant and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% pa from 09.09.2015 till the date of realization to the second appellant/second complainant and also to pay Rs.25,000/- to each complainants towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/- to each complainant. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 20.11.2017
