BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

04^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

O R D E R

SMT. P.K SHANTHA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the total relief of Rs.11,10,000/- and penal interest till the date of payment.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant is a jobless engineering professional since April 2013 and invested his provident fund savings into the corporate fixed deposit scheme of M/s.Unitech Limited as per guidelines stipulated in “The Companies (Acceptance deposits) Rules 1975” Under Companies Act, 1956 under non cumulative deposit scheme as per the terms and conditions laid in the application form.  The Chairman and Managing Director of OP-1 engaged in the real estate business across India and mobilize fixed deposits for its operational needs from public as per the guidelines laid in “The Companies (Acceptance of fixed deposits) Rules 1975” Under Companies Act, 1956.  The OP-1 had regional office at Bangalore set up with an intention to service customer on various business needs.  OP-3 is authorized agency/broker working on behalf of OP-1 locally, promoting the deposit schemes.  OP-3 is one of the leading financial services and investment solutions provider, offering wide range of financial services.

The complainant applied for the fixed deposits in the prescribed application form of the OP-1 through OP-3 at Bangalore and the receipt (FDR No.1233870) was delivered at the residential address of the complainant at Bangalore assuring to pay the interest amount every quarter on the last day of quarter by advance cheque payment and the repayment of matured amount would be made on the date of maturity as per the terms and conditions and as stipulated in the Acceptance of Deposit Rules 1975.  The quarterly interest warrants as well as warrant for the repayment ought to be delivered at the residential address well in time before the date of maturity (08.08.2016).  The details are here under.

          The complainant was not paid quarterly interest for his deposit by OP-1 since April 2015.  The OP was supposed to send the post dated interest warrants of FY 2015-16 before 31^st March 2015.  But it never sent the same till date even after many e-mail and phone communications.  The complainant have been reminding OP-1 through e-mail since April 2015 and requesting to send interest warrants without delay.  But till date the complainant has not received the same and there was no response from OP-1.  But interest warrant of 1^st quarter (1-April 2015 to 30 June 2015) was sent to the complainant in August 2015, through cheque No.144022, dated 1^st July 2015, further interest warrants of quarter 3 and 4 have not been paid to the complainant even after several e-mail and phone communication.

          Thus OP-1 had failed to repay the interest amount on demand in violation of companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and 2013 and the delay in repayment attracts penal rate of interest of 18% under clause-8 A of said rule.  The OP-1 is regulated and duty bound by “Companies Rules 1975 and 2013” for the acceptance of deposits from the public and repayments and interest payments to depositors under sec.58 A of the Companies Act 1956 (1 of 1956) of the Central Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India.  OP-1 and 2 are also regulated ad monitored by Government Agencies like Ministry/Department of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies and SEBI.  That the OP-1 was constantly and regularly followed and reminded the non-payment of interest amount as well as principal.  Several e-mails were sent to OP-1 requesting to make the repayment without delay.  Inspite of requests and reminders, OP-1 had not effected repayment failing in their commitments and thereby causing in convenience and loss to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint against OPs for appropriate relief.

          3. After service of notice, OPs.1 & 2 failed to appear before the Forum and were placed ex-parte.

          4. OP-3 appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

          That the complaint is not maintainable either by law or on facts of the case, hence the same deserves to be dismissed in limine, in as much as the complaint does not come within the meaning of definition prescribed under section 2 (1) (g) of the C.P Act, 1986 since this OP has performed their obligations and as such there is no consumer dispute alleged.  There is no defect or deficiency to be attributable to this OP provided under section.2 (c) of the C.P Act, 1986.  That this OP is a service provider and gets commission for the services rendered.  OPs.1 & 2 have availed the services of this OP for marketing of their products.  The complainant has applied for investment of money in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs.1 & 2 through this OP.  Complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions of the OPs.1 & 2 and they issued FDR bearing No.1233870.  There was no assurance or commitment from this OP to pay the interest amount every quarter on the last day of quarter by advance cheque payment and repayment of matured amount would be made on the date of maturity as per the terms and conditions as stipulated.  This OP only facilitates the investors to invest in deposits of the companies.  This OP is not aware of the receipt of several interest warrants belatedly and non receipt of several interest warrants.  The complainant has come to know about non payment of interest warrant only through this complaint.  The complainant has never approached this OP in this regard.  This OP would have assisted the complainant in this regard without any guarantee or assurance as to its payment.  This OP never recommended the complainant to invest the FDRs of OPs.1 & 2.  This OP has no means and authority to verify the credentials and capabilities of OPs.1 & 2 which will be done by the respective authorities as per company law and hence disown any liability on their part.  That the complainant never approached this OP for any sort assistance in receiving the interest warrants.  The complainant has all along directly approached and corresponded with OPs.1 and 2 and thus this OP is absolved form any liability arising out of deficiency of service.  There is no deficiency of service or any other ground and also of the fact that the OPs.1 & 2 have received the money this OP denies any liability on their part.

For the aforesaid reasons, OP-3 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          5. So as to prove his case, the complinant Mr.Prabhushankar. T, has filed his affidavit evidence in support of complaint reiterating the complaint averments and produced copies of documents.

6. The above said assertions of the complaint have remained unchallenged.  OPs.1 & 2 neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  Under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

7. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Annexure-1 is the copy of application form with terms and conditions.  Annexure-2 is the copy fixed deposit receipt issued by OP to the complainant bearing No.1233870 for Rs.10,00,000/- and copy of IDBI Bank cheque dated 01.07.2015.  Annexure-3 is the copies of e-mail correspondence made between complainant and OPs.  Annexure-4 is the copies of bank statement of complainant from 01.08.2013 to 30.09.2013.

8. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the complainant it is crystal clear that the complainant has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- in fixed deposit with OP on 08.08.2013.  OP has assured to refund the fixed deposit amounts after maturity date i.e., on 08.08.2016 along with interest at 12.50% p.a.  However the complainant has stated that the OP company has paid interest warrant of 1^st quarter (1^st April 2015 to 30 June 2015) / in August 2015.  Copy of remittance advice received from OP Company is enclosed.

9. The complainant is a jobless engineering professional since April 2013 and invested his provident fund savings in OP Company.  Now he is in deep financial trouble and need his investment back to run his family and he is struggling everyday to find one.  He had a family of 6 with 2 school going children.  He is deep financial difficulties to meet the below average family expenditure.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to non performance of the promise made by the OP.  Inspite of several reminders, phone calls also e-mail correspondence the complainant did not get any response from OPs.

10. The very fact of OPs.1 & 2 not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OPs.1 & 2 are admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.  Inspite of constant and regular reminders, OPs failed to refund the interest on fixed amounts on time.  This act of OPs in not refunding the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th quarter interest on fixed deposit amount, amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  We are satisfied that the complainant proved deficiency of service against OPs.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OPs.1 & 2 are liable to pay the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th quarter interest along at agreed rate of interest.  Further they shall pay interest @ 18% p.a on the deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) from the date of maturity till the date of realization.  Further they shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service resulting in mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

11. Complaint against OP-3 is to be dismissed.

12. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.  OPs.1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) along with interest @ 12.50% p.a for 3 quarters interest.  Further they shall pay interest @ 18% p.a on the deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of maturity till the date of realization.  OPs.1 & 2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service resulting in mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

Complaint against OP-3 is to be dismissed.

This order shall be complied within 30 days from today.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 04^th day of October 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.539/2016

Complainant                 -        Sri.Prabhushankar T,

Bangalore-560 109.

-vs-

Opposite Parties           -        1) The Chairman and

Managing Director,

Unitech Limited,

Gurgaon-122016,

Haryana.

2)UNITECH LIMITED.

Bangalore – 560001.

3) Karvy Stock Broking,

Bangalore-560004.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 18.08.2016.

1. Sri.Prabhushankar T

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs - Nil 

          Documents produced by the OPs      -       Nil

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*