IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 1/2013 (Filed on 01.01.2013)
Between:
1. K.K. John,
Parackal House, Mundamala.P.O.,
Puramattom, Mallappally,
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta Dist.
2. Annamma John,
W/o. K.K. John,
-do. –do.
(By Adv. Abraham Varghese Kadavil) … Complainants
And:
1. C.V. Philipose Sons,
Cross Junction, Thiruvalla,
Pin – 689 101.
2. John C.P.,
Managing Director,
C.V. Philipose Sons,
Cross Jn., Thiruvalla,
Pin – 689 101
3. Anitha. C.P.,
W/o. John. C.P.,
-do. –do.
Residing at:
Chandraviruthil House,
Kulakkad, Thiruvalla,
Pin – 689 101.
4. Abraham. M. Thomas,
General Manager,
C.V. Philipose Sons,
Valuparampil House,
P.C. Kavala, Payipad,
Changanacherry,
Pin – 689 101. … Opposite parties
(By Adv. Jayan Mathew)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite parties.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The 1st opposite party is a Pvt. Ltd. Company engaged in financing business at Thiruvalla. 2nd, 3rd and 4th opposite parties are the Managing Director, Director and General Manager of the company. They accept deposits from public offering good interest rates and used to give advertisement in the news papers for attracting investors. All these opposite parties are responsible for the day to day affairs and management of the company and had custody over the properties belonging to the opposite party company.
3. On 21.01.2010, the complainant give a fixed deposit of Rs.2,88,000/- for a period of 12 months at the rate of 12% interest to the opposite party’s company. The complainants had been working in gulf and the amount was their retirement benefit. According to the term deposit receipt vide CVPD/A/01070 dated 21.01.2010, the maturity date is 20.01.2011. There was an auto renewal condition in the receipt. So the deposit was continued even after 20.01.2011 without any monthly payment of interest accrued from the deposit. So the cumulative interest for the amount comes at Rs.74,880/-. So the principle amount deposited in the financial institution together with interest comes Rs.3,62,880/-.
4. The opposite parties promised that the fixed deposit amount would be returned with interest by 20.01.2011 or any other date after the maturity date if the complainants want to continue with the interest. But such promised time limit was breached every time and then they used to set a new time limit for returning the deposit with interest. So the complainants wanted to terminate the term deposit and wanted to get back the deposited amount with interest. But the demand for the return of the deposit was denied by the opposite parties as against the terms of the agreement. So the complainants sent legal notice to opposite parties demanding Rs.2,88,000/- with 12% interest. But opposite parties failed to comply the legal notice. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants. Hence this complaint for getting Rs.2,88,000/- with 12% interest along with cost and compensation from opposite parties.
5. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. 3rd opposite party filed version for herself and on behalf of 1st and 2nd opposite parties, with the following contentions. Opposite parties denies the allegation that they have offered high interest, and received Rs.2,88,000/- from the complainants as deposit. Subsequent to the raid conducted by the Income Tax Department, several financial supporters of the company withdraw their funds, as a result of which the company faced severe financial crisis.
6. The complainants had financial transactions and business deals with the company from the year 2002 itself. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties never received any money in their personal capacity from the complainants. Due to the financial crisis of the company, company had executed certain documents for reassuring clients to regain their confidence and saving the company from bankruptcy keeping in view, the interest of its clients as well. Due to paucity of funds, the opposite parties were compelled to settle the business deals with the complainant in instalment which they did in a fair manner. Almost all relevant records kept with the company were now under the custody of Income Tax Department. The complainants had preferred two separate complaints before the Hon’ble CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram alleging non-delivery of flat in a building constructed by the opposite parties and they cheated him by neither handing over the flat. In fact complainant was a promoter of business for the 1st opposite party, who had been receiving incentives for his service from time to time. The complainants had already withdrawn his investment in phases. The complainants are not at all entitled for any relief from the opposite parties. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
7. 4th opposite party filed separate version with the following contentions. 4th opposite party was an employee of the company as a P.R.O. This opposite party never provided any service to this complainants. 4th opposite party had left the company in 2009 itself and as such the 4th opposite party is not aware of the transaction described in the complaint. This opposite party is not, in any way, liable for any amount to the complainants as alleged in the complaint and hence he is not entitled to get any order as against this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the 4th opposite party and as such complainant is not at all entitled for any relief from this opposite party. Hence 4th opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint against him with cost.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be decided is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
9. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 series and Ext.B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
10. Point:- The complainants allegation is that on 21.01.2010 complainants paid Rs.2,88,000/- to the opposite parties’ company as fixed deposit for a period of 12 month for 12% annual interest. The said amount was their retirement benefit. There was an auto renewal condition in the receipt and so the deposit was continued even after 20.01.2011 without any monthly payment of interest. Opposite parties promised that the amount would be returned with interest after the maturity date. But such promised time limit was breached every time and then they used to set a new time limit for returning the deposit with interest. But they have not returned the amount so far. The non-return of the fixed deposit with interest is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants. Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainants. Therefore, the complainants prays for allowing this complaint.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the 1st complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination and adduced oral testimony as PW1 and produced 4 documents which is marked as Ext.A1 to A4 series. Ext.A1 is the term deposit receipt dated 20.01.2010 for Rs.2,88,000/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 31.03.2012 issued by complainants to opposite parties. Exts.A3 to A3(d) are the postal receipts of Ext.A2. Exts.A4 to A4(c) are the unserved covers containing legal notices sent by the complainants to opposite parties.
12. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that they have never offered unreasonable high interest to complainants or collected fixed deposit of Rs.2,88,000/- from the complainants. Complainants had financial transactions and business deals with the company. Due to the financial crisis of the company, company had executed certain documents for reassuring clients to regain their confidence and saving the company from bankruptcy keeping in view the interests of its clients. Due to paucity of funds the opposite parties were compelled to settle the business deals with the complaint in instalments which they did in a fair manner. All relevant records kept with the company were taken over and is under the custody of Income Tax Department consequent to their raid in the company. So the complainants were not entitled for any relief from the opposite parties. Further another case filed by the complainant against this opposite parties with the same case of action is pending before the Hon’ble CDRC. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
13. 4th opposite party’s contention is that he had left the company in 2009 itself and as such he is not aware of the transaction described in the complaint. This opposite party is not, in any way, liable for any amount to the complainant as alleged in the complaint and hence he is not entitled to get any order as against 4th opposite party.
14. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, opposite parties produced one document which is marked as Ext.B1 through the complainant. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of a complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties before the Hon’ble State Commission. Apart from Ext.B1, there is no other evidence from the side of opposite parties.
15. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that complainants had deposited Rs.2,88,000/- to the opposite parties company vide Ext.A1 receipt CVPD/A/01070, on 20.01.2010. According to the complainants the said amount along with its interest were not returned in spite of their repeated demand. But opposite parties contention is that at the time of their financial crisis they have returned the amount to the complainants in instalments. But they have not produced any evidence to substantiate their contention. Further the contention based on Ext.B1 is also not sustainable as the cause of action of this complaint and the cause of action of Ext.B1 are different. Moreover, there is no evidence from opposite parties to show that the opposite parties have returned the amounts or its interest shown in Ext.A1 fixed deposit receipt to the complainants. The non-payment of the deposited amount by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the amount with interest and cost of the proceedings. Since the complainant is entitled to get the interest, separate compensation is not required.
16. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director of the first opposite party and hence opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the deposited amount with interest and cost to the complainants. Hence this complaint is allowable against opposite parties 1 to 3. However, the 4th opposite party is only an employee of the opposite parties and since the complainants failed to prove any personal liability against him, we are not inclined to allow any relief against 4th opposite party.
17. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to return the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- (Rupees Two lakh eighty eight thousand only) and its interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.01.2010 onwards to the complainants along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realize the whole amount with 12% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of June, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : K.K. John.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants
A1 : Term deposit receipt dated 20.01.2010 for
Rs.2,88,000/- issued by the opposite parties.
A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 31.03.2012 issued by
complainants to opposite parties.
A3 to A3(d) : Postal receipts of Ext.A2 legal notice.
A4 to A4(c) : Unserved covers containing legal notices sent by
the complainants to the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of a complaint filed by the complainants
against the opposite parties before the Hon’ble State
Commission.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) K.K. John, Parackal House, Mundamala.P.O.,
Puramattom, Mallappally, Thiruvalla,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) C.V. Philipose Sons, Cross Junction, Thiruvalla,
Pin – 689 101.
(3) John C.P., Managing Director, C.V. Philipose Sons,
Cross Jn., Thiruvalla, Pin – 689 101.
(4) Anitha. C.P., W/o. John. C.P., Chandraviruthil House,
Kulakkad, Thiruvalla, Pin – 689 101.
(5) Abraham. M. Thomas, General Manager,
C.V. Philipose Sons, Valuparampil House,
P.C. Kavala, Payipad, Changanacherry,
Pin – 689 101.
(6) The Stock File.
