Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/08/214

K.Bhaskaran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Vijayarajan - Opp.Party(s)

C.Damodaran

08 Jan 2009

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
OLD S.P. OFFICE, PULIKUNNU
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/214

K.Bhaskaran Nair
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Thankamani
Ganga
A.Vijayarajan
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K.Bhaskaran Nair

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Thankamani 2. Ganga 3. A.Vijayarajan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. C.Damodaran

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

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