BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31th December 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.306/2016
(Admitted on 03.09.2016)
Pushpalatha Rao,
Aged 60 years,
W/o M.S.Bhaskara Rao, Apoorva,
H.No.4.98/1, Near Kavoor Junction,
Kavoor, Mangaluru 575015.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SR)
VERSUS
Authorised signatory/managing Director,
Chief Executive Office,
SRS Limited, SRS Towers, 3rd follor,
Near Metro Station Mewla Maharajpur,
G.T.Road, Faridabad (NCR Delhi)121003.
…. Opposite Party
(Opposite Party: In person)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
2. The complainant prays for the order for reliefs directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ being the deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of complaint till realization, to pay a sum of Rs,25,000/ as compensation on the head of mental agony, humiliation stress and hardship suffered by the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ as towards cost of litigation including a sum of Rs.1,500/ towards cost of the notice, grant under the circumstances of the case under section 12 of C.P.Act.
II. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ with the Opposite Party for a period of three years and in turn the Opposite Party has promised to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,525/ to the complainant at the time of maturity date, in this regard the Opposite Party had issued a fixed deposit receipt dated 10.06.2013 and in the said receipt the Opposite Party mentioned that the scheme of the deposit is cumulative deposits. After maturity date the complainant demanded for refund of the deposit amount along with maturity value. Towards repayment of the said deposit amount along with its maturity value the Opposite Party has issued two cheque on 22.05.2016 i.e., one cheque for Rs. 1,25,000 towards deposited amount and another cheque for Rs.56,525/ towards interest amount. The cheque issued for Rs.56,525/ towards maturity value was honored. But another cheque issued towards deposit amount of Rs.1,25,000/ bearing No.003804 dated 22.05.2016, drawn on Axis Bank has been returned without honoring with an endorsement as fund insufficient. Further submits that, after the bouncing of cheque the complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the Opposite Party to pay the deposit amount along with maturity amount as promised. But inspite of receipt of notice, the Opposite Party neither replied the notice nor paid the amount. Hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act,) seeking direction from this FORA.
III. .Version Notice served to the opposite party No.1 by RPAD and filed their version. The averments made in para 7 are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the maturity amount of the FDR has already been paid to the complainant by the Opposite Party. The averments made in para 8 are wrong and denied. What has been stated herein above be referred to, not repeated again for sake of brevity. It is denied that complainant has undergone mental agony, stress, humiliation, as alleged. It is denied that there is any deficiency in services or Opposite Party is negligent in providing services, as alleged. It is further denied that Opposite Party made the complainant to run from pillar to post. It is denied that Opposite Party is liable to pay any damages much less in the sum of Rs.25,000/ as alleged. At the cost of repetition it is submitted that Opposite Party has already made the full payment of the maturity amount of FDR in sum of Rs.1,25,000/ to the complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. In support of the complainant One Smt. Pushpalatha Rao, (CW1) complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the document same has been marked as Ex C1 to C6. On behalf of the opposite parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil.
IV. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite
- If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel of complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) and (ii) : As per Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
V. POINTS No. i and ii: For the convenience the above both the points considered by assigning the reasons as under. Admittedly, the relationship between the parties regarding the amount of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ fixed deposits with Opposite Party through one karvy stock broking Ltd, Mangalore, the said monitory trade business happened in the case. Further it is also no disputed the said fixed deposit sum for period of 3 years with the rate of interest per annum is 12.5% and the said maturity as on dated 21.05.2016. As such the said total maturity amount is of Rs.1,81,525/ this has been crystal clear as per Ex.C1. For the above aspects totally no dispute. Despite this complaint raised on the ground that, though the said maturity value of a sum of Rs. 1,81,525/ as 21.05.2016. That means to say, the same has to comply by the Opposite Party to the complainant as per Ex.C1 and their contract. Such being the case when it was fails to do so, by the Opposite Party the present dispute arose, for seeking the appropriate relief. In such a situation, as per the materials available in the case reveals that no proper steps taken by Opposite Party in order to make payment of the said matured amount with in the stipulated time period. But, as on 22.05.2016 paid through cheque only Rs.56,525/. For the remaining amount, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient fund, till further period as best known to Opposite Party. Thereafter, on two occasions paid the said balance amount once Rs.50.000/ on 05.09.2016 another Rs.75,000/ on 16.09.2016. To this extent even the complainant admitted. So that it is a proof the said payments made by the Opposite Party according to their own whims and fancies. Itself is enough to prove by the complainant, there is a deficiency in service made in this regard by the Opposite Party. Because, as per the document Ex. C6 the Corporation Bank pass book entries, is enough to show the said payments made by part and part. In Strict sense it reveals that, the same is alone is enough to come to a conclusion of pure violation of trade practice. For which in all the angle the Opposite Party is responsible and liable to shall down the appropriate relief by way of compensation and also the accrued interest for the delay which made by the Opposite Party in making payment in full to the complainant. Apart from the above reasons, even though the notice sent by this forum was duly served on the Opposite Party, in turn the Opposite Party sent the reply in writing to the forum by post as on 17.10.2016. Except, the same nothing has been shown by the Opposite Party and fails even to produce any of the documents as well as leading evidence before this fora. Hence, it is clear that as stated above the complainant is entitled for the accrued interest on Rs.1,25,000/ from 22.05.2016 to 16.09.2016, for the said period of rounded 4 months, at the rate of 12.50% p.a i.e. 1,25,000, hence, on the head of interest the Opposite Party is liable to pay the said sum of Rs.5,208/. That apart for causing harassment and agony including delay in making payment, the Opposite Party is also liable to pay the compensation to the complainant of the sum of Rs.10,000/. Apart from that the cost and expenses of this litigation charges of Rs.5,000/ also to pay to the complainant. As stated above both the points answered in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay for a sum of Rs.5,208/ (Rupees five thousand two hundred eight only) towards accrued interest and further Opposite Party is liable to pay for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and also another sum of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31th day of December 2016.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI) (SMT. C.V. SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1: Pushpalatha Rao
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
ExC1: 10.06.2013: Original deposit receipt
ExC2: 22.05.2016: Original Cheque issued by the Opposite Party.
ExC3: 12.07.2016: Original dishonor memo.
ExC4: 25.07.2016: Office copy of the legal notice.
ExC5: Acknowledgment.
ExC6: Notarized copy of the joint S/B Account of complainant and her husband.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Documents Marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 31.12.2016. PRESIDENT
