D.o.F:23/10/2008 D.o.O:14/01/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.220/08 & CC.214/08 Dated this, the 14th day of January 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER K.Bhaskaran Nair, S/o Late Kunhambu Nair, : Complainant Udaya Mangalam, Po.Udma,Hosdurg. 1.A.Vijayarajan, S/o Kannan,Managing Director, Prathibha Business Group, Head office Palakunnu, Po.Bekal,Kasaragod 2.Thankamani, W/o Vijayarajan, Teacher, Anganavadi, Mudiakal, Po.Bekal,Kasaragod : Opposite parties 3.Ganga, D/o Chappila, Managing Director, Prathibha Business Group, Head office Palakunnu, Po.Bekal,Kasaragod. COMMON ORDER SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER The facts of the complaints in brief are as follows: That the opposite parties 1 to 3 are conducting a finance business under the name and style as Prathibha Group and similar types of other business . As part of their business activities 3rd opposite party, the General Manager ,Prathibha Business Group collected a fixed deposit for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from the complainant agreeing to pay 18% interest per annum payable every month. The complainant paid the interest till December 2007. From January 2008 onwards the opposite parties are evading the payment of interest and the principal but made only promise to pay the amount . Hence the complaints. 2. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the version and denied the averments made in the complaints and submits that they invested the amount in Prathibha Business Group Pvt.Ltd Uduma in Prathibha real estate scheme. The investment was for the purpose of purchasing landed property and the total investment of the complainant was 1,50,000/-. But separate deposit receipts were issued for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. The opposite parties further submits that the complainant along with opposite parties inspected so many plots, but he was not satisfied any of the property. Later , the complainant demanded back the money and on different occasions and the complainant received back more than Rs.1,00,000/- in CC.214/08 and Rs.50,000/- in CC.220/08 and the complainants again asked Rs.25,000/- more as interest on each deposits and the same is not amicable to the opposite parties. Hence frivolous complaint is filed. The opposite parties further submits that Prathibha Business Group is a registered Pvt.Ltd company having head office at Palakunnu and Ist opposite party is a Managing Director and 2nd & 3rd opposite parties were Directors. Hence the liability goes to the company and the company is a necessary party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 3. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1, the complainant and Exts.A1&A2 documents. On the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1&B2 marked but no oral evidence is adduced. Exts.A1 and A2 are the fixed deposit receipts of CC.214/08 and CC.220/08 respectively. 4. After considering the facts of the case the following issues were raised for consideration: 1. Whether the complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3. If so, what is the relief? 5. Points 1 to 3: The first issue is regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties. Here there is no oral or documentary evidence before the Forum to show that the Prathibha Business Group is a registered private limited company. The issue regarding nonjoinder is answered accordingly. 6. Here the deposits were admitted by the opposite parties. Exts.A1 and A2 are the fixed deposit receipts issued by the opposite parties in CC.214/08 and CC.220/08 respectively . But while cross examining PW1, the counsel for opposite parties challenged the correction made in Ext.A1. PW1 deposed that usually the opposite parties receiving the deposits for one year and on maturity the FDR renewed by the opposite parties. He further deposed that the renewal of FDR is made either by striking of the year and date entered in the FDR and substitute in its place, the renewed date of issue fresh FDR. Here the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence on this point. Hence we conclude that the correction seen in Ext.A1 might have been donefor the renewal of FDR. 7. Another contention raised by the opposite parties is that they paid the principal as well as interest upto December 2007. In order to substantiate their contention Exts.B1&B2 were produced. PW1 denied the signature seen in Exts.B1 and B2 vouchers . Even if the said documents are admitted as genuine, we do not find any thing to conclude that as per Exts.B1&B2, the opposite parties paid the principal amount and interest. The opposite parties being a financial concern, it cannot be regarded that they will pay the principal amount on Fixed Deposit without taking back the FDR. Hence we conclude that the opposite parties were paid only interest on deposit up to December 2007 and not paid the principal amount. Considering all the above , we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and both the complaints are allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @10% per annum from January 2008 till the date of payment and also pay Rs.3000/- towards the cost of proceeding. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts.A1&A2-Fixed Deposit Receipts. B1&B2- Vouchers. PW1- K.Bhaskaran Nair- Complainant. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
