Complaint taken on file:22.12.2017

     Order delivered on: 07.10.2022

BEFORE THE HON´BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, ARIYALUR

     PRESENT:

Dr.V.Ramaraj M.A., M.L: President

Mr.N.Balu B., B.L : Member - I

Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A., B.L :Member - II

Consumer Complaint (RBT) No.218/2022

Friday, the Seventh day of October, 2022

Anwari Begum (1^st Complainant)

W/o. Parwez Zaman (2^nd Complainant)

Both residing at 2^nd Floor, Plot No.111,

Anbu Nagar Main Road,

Valasaravakkam, Chennai - 600 087                             ...                         Complainant

-Vs-

1.Jaiprakash Associates Ltd

Fixed Deposits Department

Sector 128, Noida, U.P – 201 3042

2. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd,

C/o. Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd,

2^nd Floor, 24, (Old No.46)

Parishad Apartments, Dr.B.N Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

3.Bajaj Capital Ltd,

19, Ground Floor, Wellington Plaza,

Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002                                          …          Opposite Parties

Complainant appeared as party in person

1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties Set exparte on 09.03.2018

Counsel for 3rd Opposite Party: M/s.S.Hariprasad

On perusal of records in this case, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President and Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II

1.     The Complainant has filed this case as against the Opposite Parties claiming a sum of Rs.46,500/- towards pending interest for the Matured Fixed Deposits and Rs.53,500/- towards deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties.

The facts of complaint in brief:

2.     The complainant has invested in the fixed deposit scheme of the 1^st opposite party. She deposited Rs.1,30,000/- on 19.04.2012 in FDR No.340899 (Rate of interest @ 12.5%), and Rs.50,000/- on31.12.2013 in FDR No.597137 (Rate of interest @12%). They are to mature on 18.04.2015 and on 30.12.2016 respectively. The 3^rd opposite party, who acted as a middle man or as a broker strongly recommended for this Fixed Deposit. The complainant believed that the 1^st opposite party was also a large corporate house in India. But to the complainant’s utter dismay, the company did not refund the amount when the deposits matured. After much follow up, they refunded the principal amount in July, 2017. But they did not pay any interest for the delay period. They remained silent on the issue of paying interest for the delay period which works out to Rs.46,423/- as on 03.11.2017. The complainant made several phone calls, sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party on 21.07.2017 but the 1^st opposite party did not care. Therefore, the complainant prays that (a). All the opposite parties may be ordered to pay Rs.46,500/- towards the pending interest payable by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant and (b). All the opposite parties may be ordered to pay Rs.53,500/- for deficiency in service.

The facts of written version of Opposite Party:

3.         The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte on 09.03.2018. The 3^rd opposite party has filed Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. The complainant has falsely added 2^nd opposite party only for the purpose of creating jurisdiction to this commission. In fact, there is no such office in the address provided as 2^nd opposite party, knowing this very well, the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands but has filed this complaint with the ulterior motive of grabbing money from the opposite parties.

4.         The contention of 3^rd opposite party is that the complainant has filed this complaint claiming interest for the delay period of the Fixed Deposit willfully invested by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. As the complainant herself has admitted that this 3^rd opposite party has performed the duty of a broker only and played no other role.

5.  Points to be considered:

1). Has the Opposite Party committed deficiency in their service as alleged by the complainant? If yes, what is the relief the complainant is entitled to?

2). Whether compensation can be awarded to the complainant?

3). What are the other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Points 1 and 2:

6.         The 3^rd opposite party as accepted by the complainant has acted as a middle man or as a broker. Here the contention of the complainant that “the 3^rd opposite party strongly recommended the complainant to invest in the 1^st opposite party company” is not supported by any material evidence. The complainant has not marked any material evidence except the Fixed Deposit Receipts, 3^rd opposite party’s receipt, her own letter and a calculation sheet prepared by herself. She has not filed any reliable proof to prove that the 1^st opposite party company has failed to pay the pending interest amount to her. The complainant has mentioned in her complaint that the 1^st opposite had an interest due of Rs.46,500/- and in support thereof has marked a work out sheet as her Exhibit A-5. But in her proof affidavit and in written arguments, she has stated that the interest amounts due from the 1^st opposite party is Rs.39,382/-. She has not mentioned as to how she derived that amount. The different stand has not been explained with evidence.

7.         The 3^rd opposite party has marked 12 documents that include the order copies of the National Company Law Tribunals of New Delhi and of Allahabad which show that the 1^st opposite party was in financial crisis and was taking hectic efforts to pay back to all its fixed depositors. The 3^rd opposite party has stated in their written version that the complainant has suppressed many material facts that she has received interest various times through ECS, in her ICICI Bank account vide cheque No.823024 dt 07.07.2017. The complainant was paid periodical interest by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant has not denied these opposite party’s versions in her proof affidavit or in written arguments. The complainant has not denied these statements in her proof affidavit or in her written arguments.

8.         The 3^rd opposite party states in their written version that the complainant has falsely added 2^nd opposite party only for the purpose of creating jurisdiction to this commission. In fact, there is no such office in the address provided as 2^nd opposite party, knowing this very well, the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands but has filed this complaint with the ulterior motive of grabbing money from the opposite parties. The complainant has not denied this allegation in her proof affidavit or in her written arguments. She has not produced any document to show that 2^nd opposite party is not fake. At last this commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties had pending interest amount payable to her. Hence the points 1 and 2 are answered as follows: There is no due from any of the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove the opposite parties committed deficiency in their service. Hence, there is no deficiency on the side of opposite parties.

Point No.3:

7.         The complainant’s Exhibit A-3 say that after receiving the original Certificate/Deposit Receipt from the 1^st opposite party this temporary receipt issued by the 3^rd opposite party will not remain valid. But the complainant depends upon that invalid document. When the basic issue of deficiency itself has not been proved by the complainant, there is no question of compensation or any other relief. Therefore Point No.3 is answered as “the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from any of the opposite parties.

As result this Commission passes the following ORDER:

The complainant has not proved deficiency in the service of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. The parties have to bear their expenses.

This Order was dictated by me to the steno today the Seventh day of October, 2022, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected by him and was pronounced by us in the open court today.

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -II

Witness examined by the Complainant: Anwari Begum - (Complainant)

Witness examined by the 3rd Opposite Party: Mohit Mittal

Exhibits marked by the Complainant:

Exhibits marked by the Opposite Party:

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -II