Karnataka

Kolar

CC/8/2015

C.Anjanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agri Gold Constructions Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.Raghupathi

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

  Date of Filing:  26.02.2015

  Date of Order : 09.07.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated   09^th JULY 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. N.B. KULKARNI                     …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. R. CHOWDAPPA                     ……..     MEMBER

Smt. A.C. LALITHA                       …….      MEMBER

 

 

CC No. 08 / 2015

 

C. Anjanappa,

S/o. K. Ramachandrappa,

Aged about 36 years,

Resident of Gopasandra Village,

Kolar (Taluk & District)

 

(By Sriyuths A. Raghupathi & Veeresha Kumar, Advs.)        .Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 1. M/s. Agri Gold Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

No.40-6-3, Plot No.6,

Agri Gold House,

Nimmagadda Soma Sankara

Rao Street,

Old Revenue Colony,

Labbipet, M.G. Road,

Vijayawada – 520 010,

Andhra Pradesh,

Represented by its

Managing Director.

 

2. M/s. Agri Gold Constructions

Pvt. Ltd.,

Hanume Gowda Compound,

1^st Floor, M.B. Road,

Kolar – 563 101,

Represented by its Director.

 

(Ex-parte)                             …… Opposite Parties

 

 

ORDER

 

By Sri. N.B. KULKARNI,  PRESIDENT

 

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OP U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to pass an order directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- being maturity amount in respect of FDR No. 871926/Statement Bearing No. JAN08/240429/1025 dated 04.01.2008 together with interest at the rate of 18% from  05.07.2014 till realization, as well, compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for the harassment and mental agony as well costs.   

 

2.       It is contended that the OP No.1 being the Head Office carried business as per the address given in the cause title and that the OP No.1 got branch office opened at Kolar being the OP No.2.   And that the representatives of the Ops persued him to invest by way of FD as per the scheme styled as “Silver Line Project” assuring that the repayment would be double the amount of investment after duration of 6 ½ years.

 

3.    And that accordingly he invested Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.01.2008 for which FDR came to be issued vide description given above and that the date of maturity was on 04.07.2014.

 

4.       Further it is contended that on 04.07.2014 when approached the OP No.2, having received back FDR issued cheque bearing No.748243 dated 05.09.2014 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Kolar Branch for Rs.2,00,000/-.   And that on presentation this cheque was dishonoured.   And that again on approach being made the OP No.2 having collected the said dishonoured cheque issued a fresh cheque for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Branch, Vijayawada Branch, bearing cheque No. 402837.     And that this cheque also was dishonoured for want of funds.

 

5.       And that the OP No.2 though intimated of this development did not bother to redress.    And that a legal notice dated 12.12.2014 came to be issued, which fetched no response.   So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand to seek above set out relives.   

 

6.       Along with the complaint on 26.02.2015 the complainant has submitted the following documents.

 

1. True copy of the fixed deposit Receipt bearing No. 871926/Statement bearing No. JAN08/240429/1025 dated 04/01/2008 – Document No.1.
2. True copy of the cheque bearing No. 748243 dated 05/09/2014 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited -  Document No.2.
3. True copy of the cheque bearing No. 402837 dated 09/11/2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank – Document No.3
4. True copy of the endorsement of Punjab National Bank dated 15/11/2014 returning the cheque bearing No. 402837 dated 09/11/2014 for the reason “Funds insufficient” – Document No.4
5. True copy of the legal notice dated 12/12/2014 – Document No.5
6. Postal Receipts – Document No.6

 

7.       On receipt of the complaint the case came to be registered on the above stated number and notices came to be issued to the Ops.   On 18.04.2015 in the ordersheet office note came to be submitted to the effect that since three months the door being locked with regard to the OP No.2, the RPAD sent, was returned.   Whereas with regard to the OP No.1 the postal acknowledgement came to be returned, thus the OP No.1 was served with the notice.    On this day both the Ops had remained absent.

 

8.       On 12.05.2015 the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant came forward to attempt notice on the otherside through E-mail.     As the attempt was improper on 03.06.2015 direction was issued to attempt the E-mail properly, as far as OP No.2 was concerned.      And on this day as OP No.1 did continue its absence came to be placed ex-parte.

 

9.       On 10.06.2015 it came to be noted in the ordersheet that attempt of notice through E-mail to the OP No.2 was sufficient, and as it was absent, order came to be passed placing this OP No.2 ex-parte.

 

10.     On 23.06.2015 the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted affidavit evidence of the complainant, who was very much present.   On 06.07.2015 the Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted written arguments.   Matter was posted on 07.07.2015 and then on 09.07.2015 for oral arguments and his learned Counsel remained absent it is taken that there could be no oral arguments on the part of the complainant.

 

11.     Therefore, the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:

 

(i)      Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(ii)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought

 for?

 

(iii)    What Order ?

 

12.     Our findings to the above points are:

 

(i)      In the affirmative

 

(ii)     Partly in the affirmative

 

(iii)    As per final order

 

REASONS

 

13.     Point Nos. (i) & (ii) – As these points do deserve common course of discussion and to avoid repetition in reasonings, they are taken for consideration at a time. 

         

Since averments in the complaint and the said documentary evidence produced as well oral affidavit evidence of the complainant having remained unopposed, the case of the complainant should prevail.  

 

14.     Even otherwise on going through the said documentary evidence and oral evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant in the light of the averments made in the complaint it shall be crystal clear that on 04.01.2008 the complainant had deposited sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Ops which to have maturity after 6 ½ years, thus the complainant was entitled to get back double the amount being Rs.2,00,000/-.

 

15.     The Ops made show of payment by issuing said cheques, which stood dishonoured, this would speak in volumes about deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.    However, claim of interest at the rate of 18% and then compensation of Rs.500/- per day cannot be conceded, for, even imagination cannot permit.    So, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 26.02.2015 being date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from the Ops jointly and severally.

 

 

16.     Point No. (iii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

 

1. The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- as hereunder.

 

2. The complainant is held entitled to recover Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 26.02.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from the Ops jointly and severally.

 

3. Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 09^th  July 2015.

 

 

 

 

 MEMBER                              MEMBER                    PRESIDENT