By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
These are complaints preferred under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Joint trial was preferred in CC No.95/21, CC No.96/21, CC No.97/21 and CC No.150/21
3. Brief facts of the cases in CC 95/21, CC 96/21, CC 97/21 and CC 150/21 are as follows:- In the month of January 2020, the 2nd Opposite Party approached the Complainants, assuring and believing them that the 1st Opposite Party is a registered financial company operating with the approval of the Central Government and the Reserve Bank, and if amount is invested in the said company, interest at the rate of 12% for amounts in CC 95/21, CC 97/21, CC 150/21, and 12.5% in CC 96/21 would be paid on a monthly basis and since it is a registered company, the investment amounts are fully secured. Initially, the Complainants had deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- on 03.02.2020 in CC 95/21, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 10.02.2020 in CC 96/21, Rs. 4,00,000/- (on 24.01.2020-Rs. 3,00,000/-, on 30.052020-Rs.50,000/-, on 23.06.2020-Rs.50,000/-) in CC 97/21 and Rs. 1,00,000/-( on 26.06.2020- Rs.50,000 and on 30.06.2020- Rs. 50,000/-) in CC 150/21) with the 1st Opposite Party institution for a period of one year and the 1st Opposite Party had paid interest on the above amount till the Month of December 2020 in CC 95/21, CC 96/21 and CC 97/21. But in the month of January 2021, due to the non-payment of interest by the 1st Opposite Party institution and after the maturity of the deposit of the Complainant in CC 150/21, the Complainants approached the Second Opposite Party and after seeing that the institution was locked out, contacted him on phone, but she was not ready to answer and moved away and could not be contacted later. As the first Opposite Party institution was found locked out and as the 2nd Opposite Party also moved away without any response, a complaint was lodged with Sulthan Bathery police, FIR was registered as crime No. 15/2021 except the Complainant in CC150/21. The entire amount deposited by the Complainants in the financial institution has now matured and hence the Complainants are entitled to get principal amount deposited together with interest from the Opposite Party institution. After accepting deposits from the Complainants giving assurance, they did not pay the monthly interest but closed the institution without repaying the deposit amount even after the expiry of the term. The Complainant suffered severe emotional distress and financial loss due to the acts of the Opposite Parties. Hence, this Complaint.
4. The Second Opposite Party upon getting notice appeared and filed version. The First Opposite Party was called absent and hence they were set ex-parte.
5. The Opposite Party No. 2 denies the allegation of the Complainant that in the month of January 2020, the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and the First Opposite Party is a Company with the approval of the Central Government and the Reserve Bank, and if the amount is invested, interest at the rate of 12%, 12.5% would be paid on a monthly basis and the deposit amount is fully safe, and on the basis of the Opposite Party’s assurance and belief, Complainants deposited the amount in the Opposite Party’s institution for a period of one year. The Second Opposite Party has no direct knowledge of the Complainant. The Second Opposite Party further stated that he never approached the Complainant or induced them to deposit money in any way. He stated that he was working as a manager only in the First Opposite Party firm and was employed in the First Opposite Party establishment in the month of January 2021 and was left from the institution. Therefore, only after perusing the documents he could understand and respond to the other accurate information about the investors. She denies the statements that the Complainant approached him in the month of January 2021 and she contacted them through phone as the establishment was locked out and that she left without being ready to answer, as they are false. In the month of January 2021, the Complainants did not directly or through phone contact the Opposite Party. As stated in the Complaint, there was no deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Party. So, the Complainants are not entitled to get any amount as damages. If the Complainants are entitled to get any amount, the same should be recovered from the First Opposite Party. Kodish Nidhi Ltd, was established at Cheruvannur and had started a branch at Sulthan Bathery in the month of November 2019. The Second Opposite Party applied after seeing the newspaper advertisement showing that a manager was required for the Meppadi branch and after conducting an interview, he was appointed. The Opposite Party entered the job as a manager in the First Opposite Party institution on 20.11.2019 by paying a security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This Second Opposite Party has been entrusted with the responsibility of the day today affairs of Sulthan Bathery branch and sending the amounts received as deposits in the working organization to the head office on the respective days as per the circulars and verbal instructions given by the head office from time to time. He has only done the assigned work sincerely. Receipts were given for receiving deposits from the customers coming to the establishment and the deposit amounts were sent to the head office through the bank on the respective days. No amount from the deposit amount has been appropriated for the purpose of the Opposite Party No.2. He has never approached any one directly or indirectly for investment or canvassed and has not given any kind of guarantee to anyone even for investment. The amount paid to the investors as interest every month has been paid correctly during the period of working as manager of the Opposite Party No.1 till the month of December 2020. The Opposite Party No. 2 is only an employee of the First Opposite Party Establishment. After learning about the irregularities in the First Opposite party organization, in the month of January 2021, he left from the job in the organization. He has no knowledge about the accounts and other matters of the above institution after leaving the work, in the First Opposite Party organization. Therefore, if the Complainant is to receive anything, it is the entire liability and responsibility of the First Opposite Party organization.
6. On perusal of complaints and documents, Commission raised the following points for consideration:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting compensation from
the Opposite Party?
3. Relief and cost.
7. Evidence in the above complaints consists of Ext.A1 series to A5 and oral evidence of PW1 and Ext B1, B2, X1 and X2 marked on behalf of the Second Opposite Party and he was examined as OPW1.
8. These Complaints are filed to get back the deposit amounts with interest. The Complainants’ case is that the amount deposited by the Complainants with Opposite Parties as fixed deposit have not been returned so far. But the Opposite Parties paid some amounts as interest. Thereafter, the Complainants demanded the fixed deposit amount and the balance interest due to them. But the Opposite Parties did not return the same though they had given assurance for the repayment. So, the Complainants are entitled to get fixed deposit from the Opposite Parties and the balance interest. The Opposite Parties are liable to pay the same. The Complainants have produced the receipts to show the deposits made with the Opposite Parties.
9. On the basis of contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the Complainants had deposited the amount in 1st Opposite Party institution as per the fixed deposit receipts produced by the Complainants in their cases. The Opposite Party No.1 failed to appear before the Commission to adduce any evidence to substantiate the contentions of the Complainant.
10. Then comes to the question whether the Second Opposite Party is personally liable to the Complainant for the liabilities in connection with documents produced by the Complainant. From the available evidence, it is seen that the Second Opposite Party was an employee of the 1st Opposite Party, so the 2nd Opposite Party is not personally liable for the liabilities of the First Opposite Party. Further the Complainant has not adduced any evidence against 2nd Opposite Party showing that the second Opposite Party is personally liable for the liabilities of the First Opposite Party. So, we find that the First Opposite Party is only liable to the Complainants. Here, the Opposite Party No.1 is failed to appear before the Commission and also did not bother to file version. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the First Opposite Party has no explanation for the non-return of deposited amount that has already matured. Here, non - payment of the amounts by the Opposite Party No.1 is a clear deficiency in service. However, from all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the First Opposite Party is liable for the fixed deposit amount and its interest. Since the Second Opposite Party was only an employee of First Opposite Party, she is not liable to the Complainants.
In the result all the Complaints are allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to return the fixed deposit amount with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. in CC 95/21, CC 97/21, CC 150/21 and 12.5% p.a. in CC 96/21 from the date of deposit till realization and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in CC 95/21 and CC 96/21, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in CC 97/21, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in CC 150/21 as compensation with costs Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each to all the Complainants. The interest already paid to the Complainants can be reduced.
The above order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 8% interest for the above amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 27th day of February 2024.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Salu. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Hima K.S SBI Life Insurance
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1(a) Copy of Deposit Receipt dt:23.06.2020.
A1(b) Copy of Deposit Receipt dt:30.05.2020.
A1(c) Copy of Deposit Receipt dt:24.01.2020.
A2 Copy of Deposit Receipt. dt:03.02.2020.
A3. Copy of Deposit Receipt. dt:10.02.2020.
A4(a) Deposit Receipt. dt:30.06.2020.
A4(b) Deposit Receipt. dt;25.06.2020.
A5. Copy of First Information Report.
X1. Copy of Statement of Account for the period 17.11.2019 to 31.01.2021.
(Account No.11100200014384)
X2. Copy of Statement of Account for the period 17.11.2019 to 31.01.2021.
(Account No.14670200012957)
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1. Copy of Letter. dt:15.11.2019.
B2. Copy of Deposit Receipt. dt:07.11.2019.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
