O   R   D   E   R

                                                                    (Per Ms. Savita G. Kurtarker, Member)

By this Order we shall dispose of the present Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

1. The Complainant invested a sum of Rs. 56,521.53 in the name of his minor daughters Miss Eldora A. Sequeira and a sum of Rs. 56,521.53 in the name of Miss Enrique A. Sequeira with the Opposite Party No.1 on 22.11.2007 vide receipt Nos. 8674649 and  8674648 respectively.

2. The Complainant was given two certificates in the name of the said daughters under Double Benefit Deposit Certificate.  On both the certificates It shows the maturity date as 22.11.2012 and the maturity amount on both the certificates was Rs.1,26,856.93 respectively.  According to the Complainant the said certificates were to be matured after completion of five years and zero months and according to him the date of maturity was 22.11.2012.

3. Upon completion of date of maturity the Complainant went to withdraw the amount shown on those two DBD Certificates.  However, the Opposite Parties offered him an amount of Rs. 88,000/- only on each of the receipts.

4. The Complainant protested and did not accept the same and sent a legal notice dated 04.02.2013 to the Opposite Parties. Hence the present complaint with the following prayers:

a)The sum of Rs. 2,53,713.86 being the value of the both Double Benefit Scheme under double benefit deposit alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of present complaint till full and final realization of the amount.

b) That the Opposite Party be directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, mental tension and the loss of utilizing the same in other business.

                              c) The damages as may be quantified by the court.

                              d) Costs of the present complaint.

5. Alongwith the complaint the Complainant filed notarized Double Benefit Deposit receipts, copy of legal notice dated 04.02.2013, A/D card and report showing receipt of legal notice.

6. The Opposite Parties were served and filed their written version.

7. The Opposite Parties denied that they are liable to pay to the Complainant the sum shown on the said two DBD certificates.  Further the case of the Opposite Parties is that the rate of interest depends on RBI Regulations and that the Opposite Parties have never mentioned to the Complainant that after depositing the amount for five years under double deposit scheme his amount will be doubled.

8. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that at para 4 of written version that they have created a genuine mistake in double benefit deposit receipts issued to the Complainant by giving 16.50% interest instead of 9% interest.

9. The Opposite Parties denied the interest due on maturity period on the said two receipts was Rs. 1,26,856.93 but the Opposite Parties stated that the amount due upon maturity of said receipts was Rs. 88,202.35.

10.  The Opposite Parties denied the allegations made in the complaint by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.  The Opposite Parties alongwith the written version filed Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Emanuel de Jesus Assis da Gloria da Gama Furtado and  DBD Receipts.

12.  Both the parties filed their Affidavits-in-evidence and written arguments.  We have gone through the complaint, written version and documents and written arguments filed by both the parties.  We heard ld. Advocate Mr. R. Velip for the Complainant and ld. Advocate G. Kudchadkar for the Opposite Parties.

13.  During the course of oral arguments ld. advocate R. Velip for the Complainant pointed out that since it was a double benefit scheme the amount deposited would  be double  in five years and the  same is depicted in the receipts.There is deficiency-in-service rendered by the Opposite Parties.The ld. Advocate G. Kudchadkar for the Opposite Parties during the course of arguments and in his written arguments pointed out that the present complaint does not fall within purview of section 2© of Consumer Protection Act as the Complainant has not pleaded any malpractice and the deficiency-in-service on the part of the Opposite Parties in the complaint filed before this Forum.

14. The ld. advocate for the Opposite Parties also pointed out that in absence of allegations of deficiency-in-service or mal practice against the Opposite Parties, the present complaint shall not lie to this Forum.

15.  Further the ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties pointed out that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint because reliefs sought by the Complainant are in nature of recovery of money, compensation and damages for alleged breach of contract from the Opposite Parties which is prerogative of Civil Court and not Consumer Forum.

16.  The ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties brought to our notice that the rate of interest in the double benefit deposit scheme is the same as prevailing rate of interest in case of Fixed Deposits.  The only difference and advantage in DBD as compared to normal Fixed Deposits, is that in DBD the interest is compounded of quarterly basis, thus the consumer gets double benefit in DBD Scheme as regards to fixed deposits scheme.  Further the ld. Advocate for Opposite Parties stated that the rate of interest depends on RBI Regulations.  However, we do not find any circular of interest rate during that period.  Adv. for Opposite Parties also pointed out that the maturity amount was erroneously shown in excess of what would have been otherwise actual maturity amount.

17. After hearing and perusing the documents, we find the double benefit deposit scheme shows the maturity value as Rs. 1,26,856.93.  The maturity date shown on the DBD certificates is 22.11.2012.  Both the certificates clearly show Rs. 56,521.53 are deposited at the rate of 16.50% per annum compounded quarterly and to remain until notice of five years zero months on either side expires.  Therefore we have no doubt that the Complainant is entitled for maturity value of Rs. 1,26,856.93 on each of DBD certificates. 

18. It was the contention of the Opposite Parties that the certificates were issued erroneously, however the Opposite Parties have not brought on record any circular to show that the interest accrued on DBD certificates was not 16.50% but was much more lesser than that and the Complainant is entitled to receive only Rs. 88,202.35 on each of the DBD certificate.  Further the Opposite Parties has raised during the course of the arguments and in written arguments that the Complainant has not made any grievances of deficiency-in-service.  We do not agree with this view of the Opposite Parties.  At para 3 and 4 of the complaint it shows deficiency-in-service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties.  We do not agree with the arguments that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2© of the Consumer Protection Act.  According to definition 2(d)(ii) consumer is a person who hires and avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services.

19. Section 2(o) of the Act defines ‘services’ as under:

1. After bare perusal of definition of service at para 2(o) of the act clearly states that services means service of any description which is made available to the potential users and includes but not limited to the provisions of facilities and bankings… Therefore we are of the opinion that while rendering the services to the Complainant the Opposite Parties have played or practiced unfair trade practice by saying that there was an error in the DBD certificates or the amount on the  certificates was shown erroneously as Rs.1,26,856.93 each.  We find the statement made in the written version is nothing but unfair trade practice so as to collect the deposit from the customers and deprive from actual benefit they are  entitled for.

2. We are of the opinion that we have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as per provision of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as under:

      3. Act not in derogation of any other law – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

3. After going through the records, we have seen that an amount of Rs. 1,76,404.70 which was actually due to the Complainant according to the Opposite Parties on the said two DBD was deposited in the Forum and the said amount was released to the Complainant.

4. Under the circumstances we partly allow the complaint and pass the following order:

                                                                                            O  R   D   E  R

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant the balance amount of Rs. 77,309.16 (Rupees seventy seven thousand three hundred  nine & paise  sixteen  only) with 9% interest with  effect  from 22.11.2012 till actual realization.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for mental tension caused o the Complainant and cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within thirty days from the date of this order.