BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.270-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 23^rd September 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

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of pay `6,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the opposite party No.1 is the Firm carrying on business of accepting deposits of money from public and lending money to the public at its principal place of business in Mysuru. Opposite party No.2 to 9 are the partners of the said Firm.  At the instance of opposite party No.1, who is mainly managing the day to day affairs of the finance company, complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on different dates as detailed below:-

3.     Said deposits were subject to automatic renewal till repayment of the principal amount and carry interest at 12% p.a.  Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant to pay the said sum with interest.  Subsequently, when the complainant enquired came to know that opposite party No.1 had huge amounts to receivable and the complainant amount will be paid immediately.  Thereby, no legal action was taken against opposite parties.  Complainant prays for condoning the delay in filing this complaint.  In view of the good relationship with opposite party No.1, who is Managing Partner of opposite party No.1 firm.  Thereby, the complainant has sought for an order in her/his favour by allowing the application filed under section 24(A)(2) of C.P.Act for condoning the delay in filing this complaint.
4.     After registering the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties, opposite party No.1 to 10 absent placed exparte.  Then this matter is set down for evidence.
5.     During evidence, on behalf of complainant, affidavit evidence was filed.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for judgement.
6.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not refunding the amount deposited by her/him with interest, thereby, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- During evidence, complainant has given evidence to the effect that she/he deposited the amounts narrated in para 2 of the order and opposite parties agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. but fail to pay the amount.  Hence, this complaint is filed and the complainant has sought for allowing this complaint.  In addition to it, there are averments in the affidavit evidence to the effect that opposite party No.1 has assured to repay the amount in a short period.  Thereby, there is delay in filing the complaint.  As such, complainant has prayed for an order in her/his favour. 
9.    This Forum has verified the deposit receipts submitted by the complainant.  These deposits starts from 27.09.2002 upto 12.01.2005 and date of maturity is different in each FDR.  Since the opposite parties have not contested the claim, this Forum finds that there is transaction of deposit amount by the complainant with the financial company, there is deficiency in service in not refunding the deposits.  Thereby, opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim.
10. So for as the limitation is concerned, this Forum relied on the following three judgements

1. III (2006) CPJ 390 (NC) – Kewal Trading Company V/s Kollapur Zilla Shetkari Vimkari Sahakari.
2. III (2011) CPJ 424 (NC) – Anil Phawa V/s Balibheem Singh
3. I (2000) CPJ 78 (West Bengal) – Narayan Kumar Kethan and others V/s Docan Industries Ltd.,

that money deposited with opposite party No.1, the said amount is claimed in this complaint, there cannot be any limitation so far as the deposits made by the depositors with finance corporation and the cause of action is continuing one.  Thereby, there is no limitation to the complaint.  Of course, by going through the judgements reported in 2007 and 2009 of NC and State Commission of West Bengal, the cause of action is continuing one.  Thereby, there is no limitation.  Hence, this Forum finds that the complainant is entitled to receive the amount deposited with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of deposit.  Hence,    point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of respective deposits with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.  Hence. Hence, the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of deposits shown in the F.D.Rs (as per para 2 of order) within 60 days from the date of this order.
3.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within 60 days from the date of this order.
4. In default to comply, the opposite parties shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of `7,000/- from the date of this order until compliance is made.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (