COMPLAINTS FILED ON:21.01.2012
DISPOSED ON:19.04.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
19th DAY OF APRIL-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.142/2012
Complainant | Santhosh Kumar K.M S/o Malleshappa, Aged about 32 years, R/o Kurubarahalli Village, Chowlagiriyur Post, Chickmagalore District, Presently working in Bangalore. In person. V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | GURU TEAK INVESTMENTS (MYSORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, LIG-93, Housing Board Colony, Shankar Mutt, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bangalore-560 079. Adv:Sri.Shimoga Nagaraj H.H., |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. along with damages of Rs.2,500/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. OP though appeared through their counsel, but in spite of sufficient opportunity given, OP has not filed version.
3. The complainant filed affidavit evidence to substantiate complaint averments.
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 the complainant. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that on 31.10.2002 OP has collected an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant with the promise to give dividend for the said amount and issued Annual Dividend Warrant. The cash receipt is issued by OP acknowledging the receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant on 31.10.2002. The maturity date in the Teak Bond is shown as 31.10.2011. The maturity proceeds are shown at Rs.25,000/-. OP failed to pay any returns on the amount collected. The Legal notice was sent on 17.11.2011 demanding the OP to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- the maturity value of the bond. OP has not complied the demand, the Guarantee-cum-Performance Deed is also executed by OP.
6. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced. The very fact of OP having not filed the version leads to draw inference that Op is admitting the claim of the complainant. The act of OP in not paying the maturity value of the Teak Bond amounting to Rs.25,000/- even after the maturity amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 31.10.2011, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
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 19th day of APRIL-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
