<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 21st OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs.1900/2008, 1901/2008 & 1904/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1900/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.1901/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.1904/2008COMPLAINANT Sri.Gurushanthaiah,S/o Late Revanasidappa,Aged about 67 years, R/at No.870, 4th Main,Vijayanagara,Bangalore – 560 040.Smt.G.Veena,D/o Sri.Gurushanthaiah,,Aged about 38 years, R/at No.870, 4th Main,Vijayanagara,Bangalore – 560 040.Smt.G.Veena,D/o Sri.Gurushanthaiah,,Aged about 38 years, R/at No.870, 4th Main,Vijayanagara,Bangalore – 560 040.Advocate (Sri.T.Paremeshwarappa)<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY V/s1) Jyothi Finance & Investments (R)Old Address:(No.1790, 9th Cross,Vijayanagar,Bangalore – 560040)Present Address:No.318, 5th ‘A’ Main,Remco Layout (Hampinagara) Vijayanagara,Bangalore – 560040.By its Managing DirectorSri.Y.C.Mariswamy.2) Jaga Jyothi Finance & Investments (R)Old Address:(No.1790, 9th Cross,Vijayanagar,Bangalore – 560040)Present Address:No.960, IV Block,2nd Main, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560010.By its Managing DirectorD.R.Umesh. Advocate (Sri.Mohan S)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the three complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the deposit with interest and pay some compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> Complainant in complaint No.1900/2008 is the father of complainant in complaint No.1901/2008 and 1904/2008. As the opposite parties in both the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these three cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> Each one of these complainants being lured away with the interest that is going to be offered by the OP for a deposit of certain amount for 12 months invested their hard earned money with the OP organization and deposited the amount as noted below.<br /> <br /> Sl No. Complaint No. Amount Deposited Date Date of Maturity Date of demand Date of Notice<br /> 1) 1900/08 Rs.50,000-00 Rs.40,000-00 Rs.10,000-00 06.01.2001 08.04.2001 08.04.2001 06.01.02 08.04.02 08.04.02 13.10.03 10.06.08<br /> Rs.100000-00 <br /> 2) 1901/08 Rs.20,000-00 05.08.2000 05.08.01 13.10.03 10.06.08<br /> 3) 1904/08 Rs.20,000-00 05.08.2000 05.08.01 13.10.03 10.06.08<br /> <br /> After the maturity complainants surrendered deposit receipts and requested OP to refund the same. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants went in futile. Complainants even sent demand notice on 13.10.2003. There was no response. Thereafter forced to issue the legal notice on 10.06.2008. Again there was no response. Though they invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance of OP in complaint No.1900/2008 and 1901/2008 filed the objections mainly contended that since the year 2000 the OP finance company is not functioning and the alleged FD receipts produced by the complainants are of created and forged documents. Only after the receipt of the notice issued by the Forum OP came to know of the illegal activities of the complainant. Complainants have not deposited any amount as contended. Complainants are the strangers to OP finance company. Complaints are barred by time. For the last several years OP finance company is de functioning. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In complaint No.1904/2008 OP though served remained absent, hence placed ex-party.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of each one of these complainants that complainant in complaint No.1900/2008 who is the father of complainant in complaint No.1901/2008 and 1904/2008 they being lured away with the higher rate of interest which OP finance company agreed to pay invested their money as noted in the above mentioned chart. The said deposit was only for 12 months. After the date of maturity though complainants surrendered the FD receipts to OP, OP failed to refund the principal amount deposited with interest as promised. Thus complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The evidence of the complainants finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. In our view there is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of these complainants.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk its responsibility and obligation. It is strangely stated by the OP that it is not functioning since the year 2000. If it is true then how could OP received the deposits from the complainants in the year 2001 is not known. It is further contended that the alleged FD receipts produced by the complainants are created and forged documents. If that were to be the fact why OP has not initiated the criminal prosecution against the complainant is not known. It is a serious allegation. If OP disputed the genuineness of the FD receipts they would have definitely taken to recourse to law, but no such steps are taken.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that complainants are strangers to their finance and they have not made the deposits. When complainants have produced the original FD receipts which bears the signature of the Managing Director cum Manager of the said finance institution which are not dispute how can OP say that the complainants are the strangers. If OP has not received any deposit from the complainants as noted in the chart it would have produced some registers to substantiate its defence maintained by it in the usual and ordinary course of business transactions. But no such documents are produced. Under such circumstances it can only be said that the defence set out by the OP appears to be baseless.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Complainant did wait patiently after the date of maturity to receive the amount but their efforts went in vain. That is why complainants addressed the letter to the OP making demand on 13.10.2003. That letter is received by the OP there is an endorsement to that effect. The person who received the notice has not denied the same. Ultimately complainant got issued the legal notice to the OP, which was duly served on them. Again there is no response. Copy of the legal notice is produced. With all that OP wants to say that it is de functioning, it has closed down its function since the year 2000. So the hostile attitude of the OP in our considered view itself amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 11. Viewed from any angle though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of investment. OP having retained the said huge amount for all these years accrued the wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Admittedly OP finance company is a registered company, if it has closed down its business or de functioning there should have been a documents to that effect. But no such documents are produced. Under such circumstances it can only be said that OP with a sole object to dupe its investors has come up with this false, frivolous and untenable defence. As already observed by us complainants are able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaints are allowed.<br /> 1) In complaint No.1900/2008, OP is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a up to May 2001 from the date of respective deposit and from June 2001 till realization with interest at the rate of 6% p.a is awarded along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2) In complaint No.1901/2008, OP is directed to refund Rs.20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a up to September 2001 from the date of deposit and from October 2001 till realization with interest at the rate of 6% p.a is awarded along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3) In complaint No.1904/2008, OP is directed to refund Rs.20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a up to September 2001 from the date of deposit and from October 2001 till realization with interest at the rate of 6% p.a is awarded along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1900/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective file.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V.l.n* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />