Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/08/75

B.Ravikumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

G and G Captal Bankers - Opp.Party(s)

S.Sunil

30 Jan 2010

ORDER


ThiruvananthapuramConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
CONSUMER CASE NO. 08 of 75
1. B.RavikumarSaradam,Kurakkanny,Varkala, TvpmKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. G and G Captal BankersPuthen chantha Varkala, TvpmKerala2. Sindhu Saras Kurkkanny Varkala,TvpmKerala3. BalachandranSaras, Varkala Tvpm.ThiruvananthapuramKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 30 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

 

C.C.Nos. 75,76,136,137,138,139 & 140/2008

Dated : 30..01..2010


 

The above referred cases are tried jointly vide order dated 15/01/2010 in I.A 240 A/08 in C.C.No.75/2008.


 

Complainant:


 

B. Ravi Kumar, S/o Bhanu, “SARADAM”, Kurakkanny, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. S. Sunil)


 

Opposite parties:


 

          1. G and G Capital Bankers, Puthenchantha, Varkala, Represented by the 2nd opposite party.

          2. Balachandran, S/o Govinda Pillai, “SARAS”, Kurakkanny, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.

          3. Sindhu, w/o Balachandran of ..do.. ..do..

 

This O.Ps having been heard on 15..01..2010, the Forum on 30..01..2010 delivered the following:


 

COMMON ORDER


 

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:


 

Facts of all these cases are the same but the amount deposited in each case is different. The opposite parties are also the same in all these cases. Brief facts of these cases are that, the 3rd opposite party approached the complainant and induced him to deposit money in the 1st opposite party institution run by the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd & 3rd opposite parties promised and made to believe the complainant that they have necessary license to run the business of money lending and to accept deposit of money for interest. Complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 5/12/2005, Rs. 50,000/- on 29/10/2004, Rs. 50,000/- on 8/9/2004, Rs. 50,000/- on 19/8/2004, Rs. 1,50,000/- on 10/11/2005, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 20/4/2005 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 4/6/2005 with the opposite parties. Fixed deposit receipts executed by the 2nd opposite party were issued to the complainant on the same day itself. The complainant was getting the periodical interest till March 2007. But since March 2007, no amount was paid to the complainant. Though the complainant approached opposite parties 2 & 3 for withdrawing the deposit amount, opposite parties did not repay the amount and now the opposite parties have closed the institution and are absconding. On enquiry complainant has come to know that the opposite parties have transferred all the assets and deposits of the Institution with the malafide intention to defeat the claim of the complainant. Opposite parties 2 & 3 illegally removed all gold ornaments pledged in the 1st opposite party institution and re-pledged them in the Muthoot Bankers. The above acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for refund of the deposit amount with 20% interest from March 2007 along with compensation and costs.


 

2. Inspite of paper publication opposite parties never turned up to contest the case or deny the allegations levelled against them. Hence opposite parties were set ex-parte.


 

3. Following issues arise for consideration:


 

          1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation?

          3. Such other reliefs?

Complainant has filed affidavits in all the cases and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked.

4. Points (i) to (iii): The fixed deposit receipts produced in each case reveal the deposit of respective amounts mentioned in the complaints. Complainant has pleaded that, he has received interest till March 2007. Complainant has further sworn that though he had approached the opposite parties for withdrawing the deposit amount, opposite parties denied the same and the institution has been closed. Complainant alleges that the opposite parties have illegally re-pledged in Muthoot Bankers the gold ornaments pledged in the 1st opposite party's institution by the creditors. It is a well settled position that when a firm or company invited deposits promising attractive rates of interest, it amounted to rendering service and depositors are consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has filed affidavits in support of his claims. Affidavits by way of evidence were filed by the complainant and arguments were heard. We have perused the documents on record and the un-rebutted evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant. Complainant has stated all the facts in the affidavits which have not been rebutted. From the deposit receipts we can find the rate of interest offered as 20% and the due dates of maturity are also mentioned. The act of the opposite parties in denying the interest and non-refund of fixed deposits amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Opposite parties have not challenged any allegation levelled against them. Moreover the complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.


 

5. In the above circumstance, the complaints are allowed and the complainant is found entitled for refund of the amount with 20% interest as agreed by opposite parties. There is no separate order as to compensation, since we have already ordered interest @ 20% till realisation. Hence the opposite parties are directed to pay as follows:

In C.C.No.75/2008, as per Ext. P1, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.76/2008, as per Ext. P2, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.136/2008, as per Ext. P3, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.137/2008, as per Ext. P4, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.138/2008, as per Ext. P5, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.139/2008, as per Ext. P6, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.


 

In C.C.No.140/2008, as per Ext. P7, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of January, 2010.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.

APPENDIX


 

C.C.No. 75/08


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

 

P1 : Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 5/12/2005


 

C.C.No. 76/08

 

1. Complainant's witness: NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P2 : Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 29/10/04.


 

CC.No. 136/08


 

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P3 : " " 8/9/04.


 

C.C.No. 137/08


 

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P4 : " " 19/8/04

C.C.No. 138/08


 

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P5 : " " 10/11/05

C.C.No. 139/08:


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P6 : Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 20/04/05.


 

C.C.No.140/08


 

I. Complainant's witness: NIL


 

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P7 : " " 04/06/08.


 


 


 


 


 

PRESIDENT.


 

ad.

 


 


 


 


 

 


 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

 

C.C.Nos. 75,76,136,137,138,139 & 140/2008

Dated : 30..01..2010


 

The above referred cases are tried jointly vide order dated 15/01/2010 in I.A 240 A/08 in C.C.No.75/2008.


 

Complainant:


 

B. Ravi Kumar, S/o Bhanu, “SARADAM”, Kurakkanny, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.


 

(By Adv. S. Sunil)


 

Opposite parties:


 

          1. G and G Capital Bankers, Puthenchantha, Varkala, Represented by the 2nd opposite party.

          2. Balachandran, S/o Govinda Pillai, “SARAS”, Kurakkanny, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.

          3. Sindhu, w/o Balachandran of ..do.. ..do..

 

This O.Ps having been heard on 15..01..2010, the Forum on 30..01..2010 delivered the following:


 

COMMON ORDER


 

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:


 

Facts of all these cases are the same but the amount deposited in each case is different. The opposite parties are also the same in all these cases. Brief facts of these cases are that, the 3rd opposite party approached the complainant and induced him to deposit money in the 1st opposite party institution run by the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd & 3rd opposite parties promised and made to believe the complainant that they have necessary license to run the business of money lending and to accept deposit of money for interest. Complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 5/12/2005, Rs. 50,000/- on 29/10/2004, Rs. 50,000/- on 8/9/2004, Rs. 50,000/- on 19/8/2004, Rs. 1,50,000/- on 10/11/2005, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 20/4/2005 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 4/6/2005 with the opposite parties. Fixed deposit receipts executed by the 2nd opposite party were issued to the complainant on the same day itself. The complainant was getting the periodical interest till March 2007. But since March 2007, no amount was paid to the complainant. Though the complainant approached opposite parties 2 & 3 for withdrawing the deposit amount, opposite parties did not repay the amount and now the opposite parties have closed the institution and are absconding. On enquiry complainant has come to know that the opposite parties have transferred all the assets and deposits of the Institution with the malafide intention to defeat the claim of the complainant. Opposite parties 2 & 3 illegally removed all gold ornaments pledged in the 1st opposite party institution and re-pledged them in the Muthoot Bankers. The above acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for refund of the deposit amount with 20% interest from March 2007 along with compensation and costs.


 

2. Inspite of paper publication opposite parties never turned up to contest the case or deny the allegations levelled against them. Hence opposite parties were set ex-parte.


 

3. Following issues arise for consideration:


 

          1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation?

          3. Such other reliefs?

Complainant has filed affidavits in all the cases and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked.

4. Points (i) to (iii): The fixed deposit receipts produced in each case reveal the deposit of respective amounts mentioned in the complaints. Complainant has pleaded that, he has received interest till March 2007. Complainant has further sworn that though he had approached the opposite parties for withdrawing the deposit amount, opposite parties denied the same and the institution has been closed. Complainant alleges that the opposite parties have illegally re-pledged in Muthoot Bankers the gold ornaments pledged in the 1st opposite party's institution by the creditors. It is a well settled position that when a firm or company invited deposits promising attractive rates of interest, it amounted to rendering service and depositors are consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has filed affidavits in support of his claims. Affidavits by way of evidence were filed by the complainant and arguments were heard. We have perused the documents on record and the un-rebutted evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant. Complainant has stated all the facts in the affidavits which have not been rebutted. From the deposit receipts we can find the rate of interest offered as 20% and the due dates of maturity are also mentioned. The act of the opposite parties in denying the interest and non-refund of fixed deposits amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Opposite parties have not challenged any allegation levelled against them. Moreover the complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.


 

5. In the above circumstance, the complaints are allowed and the complainant is found entitled for refund of the amount with 20% interest as agreed by opposite parties. There is no separate order as to compensation, since we have already ordered interest @ 20% till realisation. Hence the opposite parties are directed to pay as follows:

In C.C.No.75/2008, as per Ext. P1, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.76/2008, as per Ext. P2, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.136/2008, as per Ext. P3, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.137/2008, as per Ext. P4, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.138/2008, as per Ext. P5, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,50,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

In C.C.No.139/2008, as per Ext. P6, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.


 

In C.C.No.140/2008, as per Ext. P7, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- with 20% interest from March 2007 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.


 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of January, 2010.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.

APPENDIX


 

C.C.No. 75/08


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

 

P1 : Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 5/12/2005


 

C.C.No. 76/08

 

1. Complainant's witness: NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P2 : Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 29/10/04.


 

CC.No. 136/08


 

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P3 : " " 8/9/04.


 

C.C.No. 137/08


 

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P4 : " " 19/8/04

C.C.No. 138/08


 

1. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P5 : " " 10/11/05

C.C.No. 139/08:


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P6 : Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt dated 20/04/05.


 

C.C.No.140/08


 

I. Complainant's witness: NIL


 

II. Complainant's documents:


 

P7 : " " 04/06/08.


 


 


 


 


 

PRESIDENT.


 

 

 


 


 


 


 

 


 


, , ,