| DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSURU | | No.1542 F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, | | Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysuru-570023 |
|
| |
| Complaint Case No. CC/357/2015 |
| | | | 1. Sumaiya Firdose Khannum | | D/o Late Ilyas Khan, 28 years, No.L-33, 12th Cross, St.Mary's Road, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Chanakya Finance Corporation and 9 others | | No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 2. Nanjundara Raje Urs | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 3. A.Jayaprakash | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 4. A.M.Monappa | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 5. Smt.Nagarathna | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 6. Darakshayani | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 7. M.K.Biddappa | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 8. Lalitha | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 9. Rajeevalochana | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. | | 10. Leelavathi | | Partners, Chanakya Finance corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| |
| BEFORE: | | | | HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy PRESIDENT | | | HON'BLE MS. M V Bharathi MEMBER | | | HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C MEMBER | |
| |
| For the Complainant: | | For the Opp. Party: | |
| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.357-2015 DATED ON THIS THE 27th May 2016 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi B.Sc., LLB., - MEMBER 3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | Sumaiya Firdose Khanum, D/o Late Ilyas Khan, No.L-33, 12th Cross, St.Mary’s Road, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru. (Sri P.Kumara, Adv.) | | | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | Chanakya Finance Corporation by its partners - Nanjundaraje Urs
- A.Jaya Prakash
- A.M.Monappa
- Smt.Nagarathna
- Darakshyani
- M.K.Biddappa,
- Lalitha,
- Rajivialachana
- Leevavathi
All are partners of Chanakya Finance Corporation, No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru-570001. (EXPARTE) | | | | | | |
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 16.06.2015 | Date of Issue notice | : | 20.06.2015 | Date of order | : | 27.05.2016 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 11 MONTHS 11 DAYS |
Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY, President - This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of pay `2,07,200/- with interest at 18% p.a. and for compensation and costs.
- The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the opposite party No.1 is the Financial Corporation, opposite party No.2 is the Managing Partner and opposite party Nos.3 to 9 are partners of the firm. All of them are actively involved in financial business. Opposite party has invited deposit from the public. Thereby, the complainant has deposited a sum of `10,000/- on 03.05.2004, `50,000/- on 08.08.2007 and `15,000/- on 12.12.2008. The respective maturity dates are 03.05.2005, 08.10.2011 and 12.02.2013. As per further pleadings, the opposite party has agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 12% p.a. and he has paid interest upto May 2010. After May 2010, opposite party has not paid either the principal or interest amount and during the year 2012, the complainant came to know office opposite party No.1 was locked. Thereby, the amount was not paid and the opposite parties committed fraud, unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service. The complainant has claimed in total `2,0,7,200/- inclusive of interest. In respect of deposit Nos.2 and 3, the complainant has claiming the double the amount with interest.
- In spite of service of notice, opposite parties called absent. All the opposite parties placed exparte. Then this matter is posted for evidence of complainant. During evidence, complainant has filed her affidavit evidence. Further evidence closed.
- After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the claim is barred by limitation?
- Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the affirmative. Point No.2 :- Do not survive for consideration. Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- As admitted by the complainant herself, the first deposit is matured on 03.05.2005. Whereas, 2nd one was matured on 08.10.2011 and 3rd one matured on 12.02.2013. In respect of all these 3 claims, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint well within 2 years from the date of maturity as per the provision of section 24(A)(1). Whereas the complaint relating to first deposit is filed after lapse of 10 years. Relating to 2nd one, the complaint is filed after lapse of more than 3 years 8 months. In respect of last deposit, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 12.02.2015. Whereas the complaint is filed on 16.06.2015, thereby even this also filed after lapse of 4 months. Thereby, all the three deposits are barred by limitation. Even there is pleadings to the effect that the opposite party has paid interest till May 2010. There are no endorsement on the F.D. receipts or even from that date also, the claim is barred by limitation and there is no explanation by the complainant. Thereby, the complaint is barred by limitation which cannot be entertained. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, since the complaint is made by the complainant is barred by limitation, the question of considering the case on merit does not arise. Hence, point no.2 does not survive for consideration.
- Point No.3:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the complaint is barred by limitation under section 24(A)(1) of C.P.Act, thereby it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 27th May 2016) | |
| |
| | | [HON'BLE MR. H M Shivakumara Swamy] | PRESIDENT
| | | | [HON'BLE MS. M V Bharathi] | MEMBER
| | | | [HON'BLE MR. Devakumar M.C] | MEMBER
| |
