Present:       Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu

                                                President.

                                               Sri N.J.Mohan Rao,

                                               Member.

                                      AND

                                                Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

Monday the 30^th June, 2008

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 5/2006

Between:

1. K.Venugopal, S/o.Rajeshwar Rao,

    being Minor Rep.by natural father

    and next friend Koluguri Rajeshwar Rao,

    S/o.Rama Rao, Age: 45 years,

    Occ.: Agriculture.

2. Koluguri Rama Rao, S/o.Venkat Rao,

    Age: 75 yrs., Occu.: Agriculture,   

3. Koluguri Radhamma, W/o.Rajeshwar Rao,

    Age: 40 yrs., Occu.: Household,

4. Koluguri Lalithamma, W/o.Rama Rao,

    Age: 68 yrs., Occu.: Household,

5. Koluguri Srinivas Rao, S/o.Rajeshwar Rao,

    Age: 26 yrs., Occu.: Student,

6. Akula Sambalaxmi, W/o.Upender,

    Age: 45 yrs., Occu.: Household,

All are R/o.H.No.10-32, Parkal Village & Mandal,

Warangal District.                                                   …       Complainants

A n d

1. Hanamkonda Surya Finance Limited

    Regd.Office Opp.Sridevi Talkies,

    Bus Stand Road, Hanamkonda,

    Warangal, Rep.by its Managing Director,

    Sri B.Gangadhar.

2. Smt.K.Pallavi, W/o.Shyamsunder,

    Age: 40 yrs., Occu.: Chairman,

    Hanamkonda Surya Finance Limited,

    Hanamkonda, R/o. Qr.No.MIG 24/5,

    A.P.Housing Board Colony,

    Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda,

    Warangal.                                                          …       Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants              :: Sri. K.Rajeshwar, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Party            :: Sri. Jandhyam Sudhaker, Advocate

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                               ::  ORDER  ::

     Sri N.J.Mohan Rao, Member

This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to (a) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest 24% per annum to the complainant No.1, (b) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.2, (c) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.3, (d) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.4, (e) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.5, (f) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.6, (g) an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages and also an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainants are as follows:

     The case of the complainants 1 to 6 were deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/- each with opposite parties in FDRs. the maturity date was 27-10-2003 and 02-06-2004 and the maturity amount of Rs.15,000/- each for 90 months.  After the maturity date the complainants requested the amount to the opposite parties but they have not paid the maturity amount, then filed this case before this Forum for the above prayer. 

     The opposite party No.2 filed her Written Version stating that the bonds, which were filed by the complainants, they have forged and fabricated by the complainants.  Since the bonds i.e. Ex.A-1 to A-6 filed by the complainants are forged and fabricated one the opposite parties were not liable to pay the maturity amount by the complainants 1 to 6 and her requested this Forum to dismiss the case. 

     The complainants in support of their claim filed their Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-06.  On behalf of opposite parties Affidavits not filed.

     Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants 1 to 6 are entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest 24% per annum to the complainant No.1, (b) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest   @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.2, (c) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.3, (d)    an  amount  of  Rs.15,000/-  along  with  interest  @ 24%  per annum  to the complainant No.4, (e) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.5, (f) an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant No.6, (g) an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages and also an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

05.     After arguments of the both side counsels, my reasons are like this.  We have gone through the bonds filed by the complainants, they have authenticated one i.e. Ex.A-1 to A-6 they have issued by the opposite parties only because we did not find out anything from the Ex.A-1 to A-6.  It is true that the opposite parties filed an I.A.184/2006 in CD 5/2006 filed before this Forum but the same petition was dismissed but without costs.  Against this orders the duty of the opposite parties they have to file an appeal before the State Commission, Hyderabad but they have not filed any appeal or anything before the Sate Commission, Hyderabad against the dismissal orders of the above I.A.  Since the opposite parties have not filed any appeal or anything against the dismissal orders in above I.A., it is clear that the opposite parties have bounded on the dismissal orders.  In this case we have verified to  Ex.A-1 to A-6 i.e. bonds issued by the opposite parties.  It is clear that they themselves have issued, there is no doubt about it, because if really the bonds i.e. A-1 to A-6 have not issued by the opposite parties against the dismissal orders of the I.A. certainly they have to go for appeal.  Since they have not filed any appeal or anything before the State Commission, Hyderabad, it is clear that the Ex.A-1 to A-6 they are authenticated and they are originals and the opposite parties they themselves have signed on them and as per Evidence Act the court has to compose the disputed signatures of the parties.  Like wise we have composed the signatures of the opposite parties signed on Vakalat, Written Version with disputed signatures on the Ex.A-1 to A-6, those signatures are one and the same i.e. those signatures are only belonging to opposite party No.2, when those signatures one and the same certainly the Ex.A-1 to A-6 i.e. bonds issued by the opposite parties. So certainly the complainants are entitled to get the maturity from the opposite parties itself. Further citation filed by the complainants’ side   i.e. in

          -- 2007 (2) CPR 70 --

Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai  Mr.Jaydev Radhakrishna Nanvani – Appellant  V/s. Shri Tuljaram Ramachandra Habib & Others – Respondents, held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1) (g) – Fixed deposits – Failure to pay the amounts after maturity period – Amounts to deficiency of service and failure to pay FDRs. amount after maturity period there is deficiency of service.

So the above judgment is applicable to the case of the complainants, because in the present case also the opposite parties refused to pay the maturity amount of the Ex.A-1 to A-6 to the complainants, it is comes under a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  We found that Ex.A-1 to A-6 they are correct and issued by the opposite parties it is clear after maturity period, certainly the opposite parties have to pay the FDRs amount i.e. Ex.A-1 to A-6 to the complainants and further above cited judgment is applicable to the case of the complainants.  Since there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, certainly the complainants entitled to get their FDRs amounts from the opposite parties.

---  2007(2) CPR 17 (NC)  ---

  V/s. Bureau of Indian Standards and Another – Respondents  held that where a company or firm invites deposits from public for the purpose of obtaining money on promise of giving attractive rate of interest, the transaction of such a nature would make depositor a consumer under Act.

          The facts of the above judgment and the facts of the above mentioned complaint are one and the same, because the facts of the above judgment shows that bonds redeemable at the end of five (5) years and were carried interest @ 14.40% per annum payable half yearly, so the complainants entitled and further another judgment cited by the complainants in

          For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, so the opposite parties are liable to pay the maturity amount i.e. Ex.A-1 to A-6 along with interest, hence we answered this point in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties.

Point No.2   What Relief:  The first point is decided in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties, this point is also decided in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties. 

          In the result, this complaint is allowed with costs.  This Forum directed to the opposite parties to pay the complainant No.1 is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5% from the date 01-06-2004 till the date of realisation. The complainant No.2 is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5% from the date 27-10-2003 till the date of realization.  The complainant No.3  is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5%  from  the  date 01-06-2004 till the date of realization. The complainant No.4 is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5% from the date 27-10-2003 till the date of realization.  The complainant No.5 is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5% from the date 01-06-2004 till the date of realization.  The complainant No.6 is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5% from the date 27-10-2003 till the date of realization and we award costs an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only).

A month’s time is granted to the opposite parties to compliance of the order).

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e.  30^th June, 2008).

                                                                               Sd/-                 Sd/-                 Sd/-

       Member          Member          President,

       District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS                        ON BEHALF OF OPs.

Affidavit of Complainants filed                                           ---

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS

01.  Ex.A-1 is the Original FDR No. AA No.000127, dated 02-06-2004.

02.  Ex.A-2 is the Original FDR No. AA No.000113, dated 27-10-2003.

03.  Ex.A-3 is the Original FDR No. AA No.000129, dated 02-06-2004.

04.  Ex.A-4 is the Original FDR No. AA No.000112, dated 27-10-2003.

05.  Ex.A-5 is the Original FDR No. AA No.000110, dated 02-12-1996.

06.     Ex.A-6 is the Original FDR No. AA No.000111, dated 28-04-1996.

ON BEHALF OF Opposite parties

--  NIL  --

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                           PRESIDENT.

C.D.05/2006                               -- 2 –-

                                               ::  ORDER  ::

     Sri N.J.Mohan Rao, Member

This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to (a) Sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 02-06-2004 to till full payment to the complainant Nos.1,3 & 5 (b) Sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 27-10-2003 the date of maturity to till full payment to the complainant Nos.2,4 & 6 (c) Sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants 1 to 6 each towards damages. (d) Award costs of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants 1 to 6 and  (e) such other relief or relives.

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainants are as follows:

          The case of the complainants that, the complainants are the permanent residents of Parkal Village and Mandal, Warangal District.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are wife and husband.  The opposite party no.1 introduced a scheme seeking fixed deposits, assuring that it will pay interest @ 13% per annum on the fixed deposits.  The opposite party No.2 also represented that she hails from a reputed family and that her husband is in Government Service and assured that she and her husband are responsible and liable for the repayment of fixed deposits along with interest thereon.  So the complainant No.1’s father deposited a sum of Rs.6,000/- the complainant No.2 to 6 deposited @ Rs.6,000/- each in their own names with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 issued Fixed Deposit Certificates in favour of the complainants. Details given below.