D o F: 06-06-08 (Remand Order) D o O : 31-03-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.85/08 Dated this, the 31st day of March 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER P.V.Ambunhi, S/o.Parammal Vaniyankunhi, } Complainant R/at Kannamkulam, Po.Bekal, Hosdurg Taluk. (Adv.P.Padmanabhan,Hosdurg) A.Vijayarajan, Managing Director, Prathibha Finance Corporation & Business Group,} Opposite party Palakunnu, Po.Bekal. (Adv.Subash Bozz.V.M,Kasaragod) O R D E R SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The complainant is a depositor under the opposite party’s business group namely Prathibha Finance Corporation and business group. He was attracted with the advertisement of opposite party stating that for fixed deposits attractive interests will be given .i.e, for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- the interest will be Rs.14,000/- for 13 months. The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30-01-07 for 13 months and obtained FD Receipt(herein after referred as FDR). The due date of above deposit was 29-02-2008. While making deposits the opposite party agreed that he is ready to repay the deposit whenever the complainant demands it irrespective of its maturity date. But on August 2007 when the complainant’s daughter got engaged to marry, he approached the opposite party to withdraw his deposits. But the opposite party was not ready to pay the amount. Then the complainant borrowed amount from third parties for a higher rate of interest for his daughter’s marriage. On attainment of maturity of the deposit the complainant approached the opposite party and asked the deposit with interest i.e, Rs.1,14,000/-. But opposite party evaded the payment on the pretext of one or the other. The complainant visited the opposite party’s office about 15 times in this connection. But there is no avail. Moreover the complainant was insulted by opposite party in front of others. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2. Once the Forum passed an exparte order in this case. Against the said order opposite party preferred an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission . The Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order passed by this Forum and remanded back the case for fresh disposal directing the appellant/opposite party either to pay or deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant with a further direction to deposit Rs.50,000/- before this Forum,. State Commission also directed the Forum to permit opposite party to contest the case on complying the above conditions and also directed to dispose off the case as early as possible. The opposite party complied the directions of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and filed their version. 3. The contention raised by the opposite party in brief are as follows: The opposite party denied all the allegations made against him by the complainant . The opposite party submits that the complainant had made 2 deposits viz for Rs.1,00,000/- on 7/8/04 and Rs.75,000/- on 7/8/06 vide FDR Nos.825/04 and 890/06 respectively. The opposite party is liable to pay Rs2,80,000/- in total maturity. The opposite party further submits that in the early day of 2008 when rumors were spread against the opposite party’s company the complainant demanded the money and the opposite party has paid more than Rs.2, 50,000/- and at the time of receiving the amount complainant had undertook to re submit the FDR but he has not do so. Hence the frivolous complaint is filed only to grab the amount from the opposite party fraudulently and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. After considering the facts of the complaint as well as the written version the following issues were raised for consideration. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party of and if so as to what relief ?. 5. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 , the complainant and Ext.A1 document and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite party. Complainant was cross examined by the counsel for opposite party. No oral evidenceadduced on the side of the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the FDR issued by the opposite party while accepting the deposit from the complainant. Ext.A1 shows that the amount deposited, maturity date and the amount payable on maturity . Ext.B1 is the certified copy of the affidavit and deposition of PW1, Ambunhi , the complainant herein in ST case No. 1550/2008 on the file of JFCM II Hosdurg and Ext.B2 is the certified copy of the cash receipts issued by the Prathibha Business Group. 6. It is the specific case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party on 30/1/2007 for a term of 13 months and on maturity the complainant claimed the maturity amount Rs.1,14,000/-. Ext.A1 is the FDR bearing No.910/06. But the opposite party has not denied either in his version or through any other means of evidence that he has repaid the above said amount of Rs.1,14,000/- in respect FDR No.910/06 . Opposite party made an attempt to prove that he had paid back the amount. In order to prove his contention he relied on Ext.B3,. But on a close scrutiny it appears that it is a cash receipt relating to some other transaction and seems to be the cash receipt of FDR No.890/06 and it is corrected and converted as the cash receipt of FDR No.910/06. Out of the figure 890, the figure 8 is strike off and in between 9 and 0 figure 1 is inserted. Admittedly, the opposite party stated in his written version that the complainant was having transactions with this opposite party since 2001. Ext.A3 might be the receipt issued in another transaction with the complainant and the same is forged and produced before the court to take false contentions. Moreover, the opposite party is not adduced any oral evidence before this Forum and he has not given an opportunity to the complainant to cross examine him. On considering the above facts and circumstances of the case we, are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,14,000/- being the fixed deposit maturity amount with interest @10% per annum from 29/2/08 till the date of payment to P.V.Ambunhi together with a cost of Rs.2000/- . Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1. FD receipt. B1-certified copy of affidavit & PW1 on the file of JFCM II Hosdurg B2- “ order issued by JFCM II Hosdurg B3- “ cash receipts PW1- P.V.Ambunhi- complainant Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT Date of filing : 06-06-08 Date of order : 25-08-08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.85/08 Dated this, the 25th day of August 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER P.V.Ambunhi, S/o.Parammal Vaniyankunhi, } Complainanty R/at Kannamkulam, Po.Bekal, Hosdurg Taluk. A.Vijayarajan, Managing Director, Prathibha Finance Corporation & Business Group,} Opposite party Palakunnu, Po.Bekal. O R D E R SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The complainant is a depositor under the opposite party’s business group namely Prathibha Finance Corporation and business group. He was attracted with the advertisement of opposite party stating that for fixed deposits attractive interests will be given .i.e, for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- the interest will be Rs.14,000/- for 13 months. More over the opposite party offered after deposit service. The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30-01-07 for 13 months for that he received FD receipt. The due date of above deposit was 29-02-2008. While making deposits the opposite party agreed that he is ready to repay the deposit whenever the complainant demand it irrespective of maturity date. But on August 2007 when the complainant’s daughter got engaged to marry he approached the opposite party to withdraw his deposits. But the opposite party was not ready to pay the amount. Then the complainant borrowed amount from third parties at a higher rate of interest for his daughter’s marriage. On attainment of maturity of the deposit the complainant approached the opposite party and asked the deposit with interest i.e, Rs.1,14,000/-. But opposite party evaded the payment on the pretext of one or the other. The complainant visited the opposite party’s office about 15 times. But there is no avail. Moreover the complainant was insulted by opposite party in front of others. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2. Here the notice is duly sent to the opposite party, A.Vijayarajan, Managing Director, Prathibha Corporation and Business Group, Palakunnu but it was refused by opposite party to accept hence it was returned with an endorsement that it is unclaimed. Hence the opposite party called and he was absent and set exparte. 3. The issue raised in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? If so, what is the relief? 4. The evidence in this case is the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the fixed deposit receipt issued by the opposite party. Ext.A1 clearly shows that the amount of deposits and the amount to be payable at the time of maturity. Since there is no contra evidence on the part of the opposite party there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the complainant regarding the facts of the case. Considering all the facts in records and Ext.A1 we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence we allow the complaint directing the opposite party, the Managing Director, Prathibha Finance Corporation and Business Group, Palakunnu to pay Rs.1,14,000/-being the fixed deposit amount with maturity amount with interest @ 10% per annum from 29-02-2008 till the date of payment to P.V.Ambunhi and also direct to pay Rs.2000/- as costs. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 30-01-2007. FD receipt. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ |
