COMPLAINTS FILED ON:14.12.2011
DISPOSED ON:20.04.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
20th DAY OF APRIL 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.2270/2011. 2271/2011
2272/2011 & 2273/2011
Complaintno.2270/2011 Complainant | Venkatesh H.T S/o Thimmappa, R/a Hale Kote Road, Hebbale Post, N.Kodagu. Adv:Sri. Abhinandan H |
Complaintno.2271/2011 Complainant | Smt.Indira W/o H.T.C.Thimmappa, Residing at No.2-112, Dandinapate, Kushalnagar-571234, N.Kodagu. Adv:Sri. Abhinandan H |
Complaintno.2272/2011 Complainant | Raju. H.H. S/o Hushappa, R/a near G.M.P.School, Hale Kote Road, Hebbale Village, N.Kodagu. Adv:Sri. Abhinandan H |
Complaintno.2273/2011 Complainant | Kariyappa B.K. S/o Kariyappa, R/a Hale Kote Village, Hebbale Post, N.Kodagu. Adv:Sri. Abhinandan H V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | GURU TEAK INVESTMENT (MYSORE) PVT. LTD., No.93, 1st Floor, LIC Colony, Near Shankarmath Circle, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079. Represented by its Managing Director. Adv:Sri.H.H.Nagaraj |
| | |
| | | | |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
These complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the bond amount invested with interest at 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. Op though appeared through their counsel has not filed version.
3.The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, each of the complainants filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard, OP side taken as heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of each of these complainants. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that the complainant in complaint No.2271/2011 invested sum of Rs.1,750/- and the complainants in other three complaints each of them invested Rs.10,500/- with OP and OP has issued the receipts and Teak Bonds in the name each complainants. The complainants approached OP during the month of November-2010 with an intention to Opt out of the Scheme as per terms B.3 of the General Terms of the Plan and submitted applications on 14.12.2010 with a request to refund bond amount with interest at 4% p.a. from the date of receipt till realization and surrendered the original receipts and Teak Bond Certificates along with covering letter dt.18.01.2011. Op has issued the acknowledgment for having received the original receipts, Teak Bond Certificates and promised to pay the amount with interest within 180 days from that date. Subsequently, OP failed to pay the amount, the complainants got issued legal notice dt.29.08.2011 and the notice was duly served on the OP. OP neither replied for the notice nor complied with the demands. Thus the complainants felt deficiency in service and filed these complaints.
6. As per Clause-B.3 of the General Terms of the Plan attached to the Teak Bond Certificate it is stated that if the investor desires to opt out of the plan he/she may do so after the end of four years from the date of joining of the scheme. In such cases the investor shall communicate to the Company in writing. On such desire to opt out of the Plan shall surrender the bond and other documents to the Company. The Company shall pay the investor the principal amount with interest of 4% p.a.
7. All these complainants intimated the OP by surrendering the original Certificates and receipts and OP has also issued the acknowledgment for having received the original receipts and Teak Bond Certificates. When OP has received the original documents along with application, the invested amount of these complainants ought to have been refunded with interest at 4% p.a. The legal notice was duly served, OP has not replied for the same. Thus the act of OP in not refunding the amount invested with interest amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The very fact of Op having not filed version leads to draw inference that Op is admitting the claim of the complainants.
8. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants, the documents produced. Each of these complainants are entitled for refund of the amount invested with interest at 4% p.a. from the date of respective investment, till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- in each case. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.
The OP in complaint Nos.2270/2011, 2272/2011 & 2273/2011 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.10,500/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of investments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to each of the complainants.
In complaint No.2271/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,750/- with interest at 4% p.a. from 29.01.2005 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2270/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected files.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of April-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
