4BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30TH March 2015
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.493/2014
(Admitted on 27.12.2014)
Smt Reeja T.M.,
W/o P.Subhaschandra,
Aged 45 years,
Mangara Compound,
Emmekere, Bolar,
Mangalore – 575 001. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri K.P. Bindusara Shetty)
VERSUS
1. M/s. PACL Limited,
3rd Floor Golden Square Building,
Maidan 3rd Cross,
Mangalore- 575 001,
Represented by
Branch Manager.
2. Mrs. Saritha S. Raj,
W/o. Sounder Raj K.,
‘Mangala’, 24-5-551/3,
Babugudde, Nandigudde,
Mangalore-575 002. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Parties: Exparte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, he is a customer of the Opposite party No.1 company doing financial transactions such as collecting deposits in installments for fixed period with undertaking to repay the deposits on maturity with interest. The Opposite party No.2 who is agent of the Opposite party No.1, canvassing various deposit schemes of the Opposite party No.1, collecting deposit amounts from the customers on behalf of the Opposite party No.1. The complainant submits that the Opposite Party No.2 on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 approached her and persuaded her to purchase a term deposit scheme certificate for a period of five years 6 months commencing from 19.2.2009 with registration No.U16739440, payable a sum of Rs.21,820/- at the end of the term.
It is stated that, as per scheme, the amount shall be deposited in 22 equal quarterly installments of Rs.700/- each and the entire deposit amount becomes repayable on maturity. The above said deposit of the complainant was matured for payment on 19.8.2014 and the amount payable on maturity is Rs.21,820/-. But inspite of repeated demands the Opposite Parties have failed to make payment of the deposit amount due. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 5.11.2014 to the Opposite Parties and the said notice was served on the Opposite Parties on 8.11.2014 and 10.11.2014 respectively without demur.
It is further stated that the opposite parties are bound to repay the deposit amount on demand with interest. The deposit is made as a financial security of the depositor. The nonpayment of deposit amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. Feeling aggrieved by the above, the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a total sum of Rs.21,820/- as Deposit receipt along with interest at 15% quarterly rests from due date till this date along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 inspite receiving version notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence Opposite Party No.1 and 2 placed exparte and postal acknowledgement marked as Court Doc.No.1 and 2.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Smt Reeja T.M. (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C5. Opposite Parties placed exparte.
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 notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Points No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
In order to substantiate averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit in support of documents, wherein, the Ex.C1 is the notarized copy of the Fixed deposit receipt wherein the Complainant deposited certain sum of money and the said certificate issued on 19.2.2009 and the date of maturity is 19.8.2014. On 19.8.2014 the Opposite Party agreed to pay Rs.21,820/- at the end of the term. It is further reveals that the Complainant as per the certificate liable to deposit 22 equal quarterly instalments of Rs.700/- each and the entire deposit amount becomes payable on maturity after five years six months i.e. 19.8.2014. In the present case, the Ex.C2 along with acknowledgment reveals that the Opposite Party inspite of receiving the above said amount failed to refund the above said deposit on maturity i.e. on 19.8.2014 till this date. It is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to refund the above said deposit on maturity since the Opposite Party not paid the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
It is a settled position of law that, after the maturity of the above said amount, the Opposite Party is duty bound to repay the invested money along with interest to the Complainant as agreed by them. But even after the date of maturity the Opposite Party not refunded the amount under the above certificate. On the other hand, the Opposite Party assured the Complainant and postponed the payment. As we know the investment made by the Complainant is not a debt. In other words, the Opposite Party company not financed the above said amount to the Complainant. But it is known fact that, the invested money by the Complainant has been utilized by the Opposite Party in their finance business and now without refunding the same to the investor herein the Complainant on the date of maturity or within reasonable time appears to be perverse. Since the Opposite Party not paid the amount till this date, we hold that the cause of action in case of like this nature is continuing one. However, in the instant case, the amount was matured on the date mentioned in Ex.C1, the Opposite Party not refunded the amount till this date and hence the service rendered by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
Apart from the above we further observed that the Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case. The entire material evidence produced by the Complainant are not contradicted nor controverted. Hence which requires no further proof.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the service rendered by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall refund a sum of Rs.21,820/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand eight hundred twenty only) along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment to the complainant and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the 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 Party No.1 and 2 shall refund a sum of Rs.21,820/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand eight hundred twenty only) along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment to the complainant and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The F.D.R. if any deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.
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 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of March 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt. Reeja T.M. – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 19.2.2009: Notarized cop y of Fixed Deposit Receipt.
Ex C2: 5.11.2014: Office copy of Lawyer’s Notice issued to O.P.s.
Ex C3: 8.11.2014: Postal Acknowledgment of O.P.No.1
Ex C4: 10.11.2014: Postal Acknowledgment of O.P.No.2
Ex C5: 16.8.2014: Acknowledgment in receipt of Deposit Receipt issued by O.P.No.1.
Court Documents:
Doc.No.1 and2: Postal Acknowledgements
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated:30.3.2015 PRESIDENT
