Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 10th day of December, 2004
C.D.No.100/2004
Mrs B. Saroja,
W/o. B. Siva Sankar,
R/o. Kothapeta,
H.No. 41-513-4, Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
-Vs- counsel Sri L. Sumitra Rani
- The Chairman/ Managing Director,
I.C.D.S. Ltd,
Regd., Office, Syndicate House,
Manipal-576119. . . . Opposite party
- The Branch Manager,
I.C.D.S Ltd,
D.No. 48-326, Ist floor,
Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool.. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay her Rs.16,343/- with interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.500/- as costs of this case, Rs.300/- as cost of notice and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstance of the case.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has purchase a debenture certificate from 1.10.2001 to 1.10.2003 with the opposite parties for a refundable matured amount of Rs.16,343/-, vide debenture certificate series No. GC on 1.10.2001. On expiry of the maturity period, inspite of several demands and personal approached the opposite parties did not refund the said due amount and hence the complainant got issued legal notice on 1.9.2004 to opposite party No.1 seeking refund on matured amount and it was sent through registered post on 1.9.2004 and it was acknowledged by the opposite party No.1 on 3.9.2004 and the opposite parties did not complied the demand for refund of the matured amount but replied to the said notice dt 4.9.2004 stating that it has approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore for re-payment of deposits, debentures, bonds and subordinated debts to the investors and requested to wait till the approval by the Hon’ble, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. Thereafter, there is no response from the opposite parties, from the above said lapsive conduct of the opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim of Rs.16,343/- with interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, Rs. 500/- as costs and Rs.300/- as notice costs.
In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any defence and thereby remained exparte.
While such is so with the opposite parties the complainant in substantiation of its case relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to Ex A.4 besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments.
Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case of deficiency on the part of the opposite party towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought:-
The Ex A.1 is the debenture certificate bearing series No. G.C dt 1.10.2001. It envisages the purchase of 13 debenture of Rs.1,000/- each by the complainant on 1.10.2001 and the opposite parties assuring the payment of Rs.16,343/- as the maturity value payable on 1.10.2003. The Ex A.2 is the office copy of the legal notice dt 1.9.2004 issued by complainant’s counsel along with postal receipt bearing No. 618 caused on the opposite party No.1 demanding the payment of maturity value of the Ex A.1 to the complainant and alleges defaultive conduct of the opposite parties in not refunding the maturity value so far and hence holding the opposite parties liability not only to the maturity amount of Rs. 16,343/-, but also to the interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, said Ex A.2 notice, by the opposite party. The Ex A.4 is the reply notice dt 4.9.2004 addressed by DCM-LAW to the Ex A.2, informing the complainant’s counsel that it has filed a scheme before Hon’ble High Court, Karnataka, Bangalore for repayment of deposits, debentures, bonds and subordinated debts to the investors. The deposit amount will be paid as per the scheme filed before the approval of the scheme by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore the facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.4 and the complaint averments and the complainant’s sworn-affidavit in re-iteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties and hence there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant. The delay in encashment of debentures by the opposite parties is deficiency of service to the complainant, since on presentation by the bearer the same are to be encashed.
7. When a Company or Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest or attractive sums it is a service and the depositor is a Consumer as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Raji Vs Among Industries reported in 1993 (3) C.P.R. page 345.
8. When the among under the deposit with accrued benefit not released to the depositor by the financial institution, the said conduct of not honoring the said commitment amounts to deficiency and the Financial Institution is liable to refund the accrued amount with 12% interest as per the decision of Hon’ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani Savings and Investments (India) Limited Vs Vastla Baba Saheb Gai Quard reported in I ( 2003) C.P.J. page 260.
9. In the present case also the opposite parties firm inviting the public deposits on a promise of the payment of matured value on a tenure of 2 years from the date of purchase did not kept up the said commitment to the complainant by avoiding the payment of the matured value. Thus the said lapsive conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant consumer depositor and thereby the grievances of the complainant are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the liability of the opposite parties for refund of the accrued matured value with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the maturity and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of opposite parties and costs of Rs.1,000/- as the complainant was driven by the opposite parties to the Forum for redressal.
10. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the matured value of Rs.16,343/-/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 10h day of December, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Debenture certificate No. GCC 20184 dt 1.10.2001 issued by opposite
party No.1 in favour of the complainant.
Ex A.2 Legal notice dt 1.9.2004 issued by complainant’s counsel along with
postal receipt No. 618.
Ex A.3 Postal acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 for receipt of Ex A.2.
Ex A.4 Reply notice dt 4.9.2004 given by DGM Law to the Ex A.2.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
