Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

175/2011

K.S.Gunaranjan & Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kasi Group of Company - Opp.Party(s)

V.Yurendrakumar

17 May 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   26.04.2011

                                                                        Date of Order :   17.05.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 175/2011

   WEDNESDAY THIS  17^TH  DAY OF MAY 2017

1.  K.S. Gunaranjan,

2.  K.V. Sreekanth,

3.  Girish,

4.  Poornima,

5.  Vani,

6.  Lalitha,

7.  Kamala,

8.  C.Veena,

9.  Sathyanarayanasetty

10. Aswathamma,

11. Prabha,

12. S.Kiran,

13. S.Prakash,

14. Parvathy,

15. Girija Sreekanth,

16. Anitha Ranjan,

17. L.Leela,

18. Gowramma,

19. K.S.Namratha,

20. K.S.Somashekar,

21. Yashoda,

22. K.G. Deepthi,

23. R.Chandrasekar,

All are residing at

2^nd Floor, Vidyanidhi Buildings,

K.R. Circle, Mysore 570 001.                              .. Complainants

 

                                   ..Vs..

The Managing Director,

Kasi Group of Companies,

HO # 93 Jawaharlal Nehru Street,

Next to Kasi Theatre Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 83.                                                     .. Opposite party.

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. V. Yurendrakumar

Counsel for opposite party      :    M/s. A.Arumugam.  

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.15,74,450/- the matured amount due on the fixed deposits with interest @ 27% and also to pay interest @ 27% p.a. on Rs.4,60,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainants submit that they invested money as Fixed deposit with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/-.  The complainants further state that the opposite party after receiving the fixed deposit amount agreed to pay interest at the rate of 27%.  The complainants further submit that their demands for payment of interest on the deposits to meet emergent family needs were met with opposite party’s reply of payment of interest at the rate of 10,350/- per month  upto September 1999 and thereafter Rs.5,000/- per month upto March 2001 and paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month till November 2009 and no further interest paid. Despite of several demands made by the complainant the opposite party failed to pay the  principal amount.  But the opposite party by letter dated 16.11.2009 informed that only Rs.16,500/- is the final settlement of the various fixed deposits and there was no other outstanding due.   

2.     Accordingly the complainants issued legal notice dated 26.12.2009 to the opposite party.     As such the attitude of the opposite party clearly amounts for gross deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. Written Version of  the opposite party   in brief are as follows:

         All the allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein are denied as false.    The opposite party submit that the complaint has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act for the claim made.   The opposite party also submit that the alleged payment of Rs.16,500/- in the opposite party’s reply dated 26.12.2009 has been quoted out of the context and the reference made in sending the amount of Rs.16,500/- in full and final settlement after receiving the complainant’s reminder dated 27.10.2009 sent through email.   Further the allegation that the complainants were lured with offers of high interest @ 27% than nationalized banks made him and his family members including relatives and friends to invest with opposite party  are not admitted and are denied.  

4.     Further the opposite party states that  complainants’ demand for payment of interest on the deposits to meet emergent family needs were met with opposite party’s reply of payment of interest @ Rs.10,350/- per month are denied.    Further averment that the opposite party gave post dated cheques and on their dishonor repaid the same demand drafts, which payments continued only upto September 1999 and on insistence, the opposite party for reasons paid interest @ Rs.5000/- upto March 2001 are not admitted by the opposite party and are denied. 

5.     Further the opposite party also states that the averments in the complaint that the interest payment got reduced again to Rs.2000/- p.m. and was paid upto November 2009 and all these times the opposite party only paid interest as agreed, keeping the principal intact are not admitted.   Further the averments that the opposite party utterly failed to perform as agreed for interest payment alone was made without any discharge of principal anytime and the opposite party by letter dated 16.1.2009 informed that only Rs.16,500/- is the final settlement of the various fixed deposits and there was no other outstanding due, necessitating issuance of legal notice dated 26.12.2009 are not admitted and are denied.   Both in reply dated 16.11.2009 as well as reply to the legal notice dated 26.12.2009 the opposite party had put the complainants on notice that the matter had reached a quietus of settlement of Rs.16,500/- in response to the email of the complainant.  Admittedly the cause of action cited are time barred and no complaint can be raised on such imaginary allegations.     Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

6.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party not filed and no document marked on the side of the opposite party.  

7.   The point for the consideration before this Forum is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,74,450/- with 27% interest and further 27% interest p.m. Rs.4,60,000/- for the alleged deficiency of service committed by the opposite party ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  as prayed for ?

8.      POINT No. -1:-

 

        Heard both sides, Perused the records.   The learned counsel for the complainants contended that the complainants deposited huge amount as per Ex.A1 (series) fixed deposit receipts with the opposite party to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/. The opposite party after receiving the fixed deposit amount agreed to pay 27% interest.  But the opposite party paid such interest for some period and thereafter paid a sum of Rs.10,350/- per month upto September 1999 and thereafter Rs.5,000/- upto March 2001 and paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month till November 2009 and thereafter no interest paid.  Even after repeated requests and demands made by the complainants, the opposite party failed to pay the interest and principal amount and sent  Ex.A9 letter, dated 16.11.2009 informing that as per the final settlement a sum of Rs.16,500/- paid by way of demand draft.   Hence the complainants issued Ex.A12 legal notice dated 26.12.2009 denying the final settlement of Rs.16,500/-.  But the complainants have not disputed the receipt of Rs.16,500/- by way of demand draft.  The contention of the opposite party is that the payment of 27% interest and thereafter reduction in payment of interest by the opposite party is totally denied, as it is against Banking Rules and Regulations.   There is no money lender between the complainants and the opposite party.  The complainants  have not produced any record to prove the payment of such 27% interest till November 2009.  As per R.B.I. guidelines payment of interest of 27% is not permitted.  Hence this forum is of the considered view that such speculative transaction cannot be accepted and the complainants cannot claim 27% interest as of right.    

9.     Further it is seen from Ex.A1  Fixed Deposit receipts that the complainants also have not produced the Fixed deposit receipts for the alleged amount of  Rs.4,60,000/-.    Equally the complainants failed to produce the original fixed deposit receipts Ex.A1.  The complainants also have not stated any reason for the non production of original fixed deposit receipts, establish there may be some settlement.

10.    The learned counsel for the complainants further contented that as per the calculation the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs.15,74,450/- with interest at the rate of 27% p.a. and interest at the rate of 27% p.a. for Rs.4,60,000/-.  But the complainants have not produced any fixed deposit receipts for Rs.4,60,000/-.   Equally the complainants as per law not entitled 27% interest on such fixed deposits.   The complainants have not produced any document to prove the alleged interest of 27% received. The complainants have not deducted the alleged interest amount received and the said sum of Rs.16,500/- received towards interest in this case knowing or unknowingly proves that the claim is imaginary.   

11.    The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainants miserably failed to give a calculation  for such huge amount of Rs.15,74,450/- much less the interest.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that all the fixed deposit receipts shows only the principle amount and the maturity amount also one and the same amount.   In the interest column it is noted that 27% which is against the R.B.I rules.  The opposite party denied the said 27%  interest as totally false.   The complainants claim of Rs.15,74,450/- is imaginary and against law.    There is no proper account also.  The complainants have not given any calculation  for such huge amount.   The complainant admitted in the complaint that he has received 27% interest for some period and later the interest has been reduced as Rs.5,000/- and thereafter Rs.2,000/-  also has not been proved.     The alleged deficiency of service in payment of interest at the rate of 27% is imaginary and against law.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that this forum have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case because the complainants are claiming a sum of Rs.15,74,450/- towards the matured amount due on the fixed deposits with interest at the rate of 27% from December 2009 i.e. Rs.6,37,652/- and further to pay interest at 27% p.a. on Rs.4,60,000/- i.e. Rs.1,86,300/- and Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and compensation totaling Rs.24,08,402/- exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction value.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service in payment of interest and the principle amount, since the opposite party settled the claim as per Ex.A9 for a sum of Rs.16,500/- and this point is answered accordingly.

12.    POINT NO.2

        The learned counsel for the complainants contended that the opposite party has not paid the interest as per the fixed deposit receipts and thereby committed deficiency of service and caused mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service.   But on a careful perusal of the entire records it is seen that the complainants have not produced any document or evidence for the payment of such huge  percentage of interest against R.B.I. rules and have not denied the final settlement amount of Rs.16,500/- received by way of cheque.  The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that all the complainants having individual cause of action, is not entitled to file this complaint commonly before this forum.   The fixed deposit receipts Ex.A1 is also of different dates.  The cause of action is a mixture question of law and fact is very clean this Forum have no jurisdiction.    In this case there is no proper cause of action and all the complainants have no right to file this case commonly.   But it is not denied that this case is filed for deficiency of service in payment of interest on the fixed deposit amount.  There is no limitation for the fixed deposits,  until payment or settlement.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that there is no deficiency of service never caused by the opposite party in this case is proved by the complainants,  since the case is filed after full and final settlement and the claim of interest at the rate of 27%  is against R.B.I. rules.   Further, all the fixed deposit receipts show that the maturity amount is the same fixed deposit amount.  Hence the claim of  27% interest never arise.  The complainants have not produced any document or evidence to prove such interest paid or agreed to pay against R.B.I Rules.   Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this forum is of the considered view that the complainants are not entitled to get any amount towards deficiency of service, mental agony and this point is answered accordingly.

  In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.        

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  17^th  day  of  May 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-         -       -  Copy of Fixed Deposit receipts (series)

Ex.A2-         -       -  Copy of Opposite party’s letter.

Ex.A3-         -       -  Copy of fixed deposit receipts received by opposite party.

Ex.A4- 22.7.1999  -  Copy of letter by opposite party.

Ex.A5- 21.10.2009         -  Copy of letter by complainant.

Ex.A6- 04.02.2009         -  Copy of letter by opposite party.

Ex.A7- 06.05.2009         -  Copy of notice

Ex.A8- 06.07.2009         -  Copy of complainant’s letter.

Ex.A9- 16.11.2009         -  Copy of opposite party’s letter.

Ex.A10- 09.12.2009- Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A11-       -       -  Copy of returned cover.

Ex.A12-  26.12.2009- Copy of reply.

Ex.A13- 22.04.2010 - Copy of order made in CC.No.28/2010.

Ex.A14- 03.01.2010 - Copy of order made in F.A.No.1922/10.

Opposite party’s side document: -   .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.