COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT.M.YASHODHAMMA MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1909/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Laxmikantha,S/o Late A.Venkataramyya,Aged about 58 years,No.16/267, II Main, 10th Cross, N.R. Colony,Bangalore – 19.Advocate ( Smt.Vidya Jahagirdar)V/s<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.Krishnamurthy.Managing Director,Invest Tech Builders andDevelopers Pvt. Ltd.,No.377, 1st Floor, 7th Cross,II Main, Near Hotel Shanthisagar, (Airport Road) Domlur Layout,Bangalore – 71.(Now in judicial custody service through Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore).<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the deposit made by him together with interest and pay a compensation and damages as well as for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> The respondent is engaged in the business of mobilizing deposits from the investors claiming to be a real estate consultancy service, assuring of high returns by way of interest payable every month which attracted the people at large. The complainant being lured away with the promises, proclamation and assurances given by the OP thought of investing his hard earned money. OP not only promised to give lump sum monthly interest on the said deposit but also promised to give “share of profit” pertaining to the said investment. OP made the investors to believe that the said deposit is towards booking of the apartment, buying or selling the houses or site and use of the funds as an advance towards any other profitable activity. OP further promised that if the share of profit is not disbursed well with in the stipulated time, delay in disbursing the same beyond seven days carry 18% interest. Thus the complainant believed and trusted the version of the OP and invested his money as per the details noted below in the chart.<br /> <br /> Sl.No. Complaint No. Complainant Name Date of Deposit Amount Deposited Recei pt No. Date of Application & agreement<br /> 1) 1909/08 Laxmikantha 07.02.05 09.02.05 05.03.05 15.03.05 02.05.05 Rs. 35,000-00 Rs. 25,000-00 Rs. 20,000-00 Rs. 20,000-00 Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------239 ------- -------------- --------------------------------------------------------<br /> Rs.1,10,000-00 <br /> <br /> OP after the acceptance of the said deposits kept up its promise in paying the interest for few months, thereafter suddenly closed down its business locked the business premises and failed to pay the interest, leave apart share of profit. Complainant felt that he is duped and cheated. The complainant did approach the OP repeatedly seeking for refund of his investment. But all his efforts have gone in vain. Thus the complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint notices were sent to the OP who is now housed in the Central Jail of Bangalore. The notices were duly served on the OP through the Jail Superintendent. OP has not made any arrangement to represent them in this case. Thus the complainant was asked to file the affidavit evidence.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP neither filed the version nor participated in the proceedings. Hence the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the propaganda and advertisement issued by the OP who claims to be a real estate and consultancy service engaged in business of mobilizing the deposit from prospective investors assuring him of the high returns by way of interest payable monthly and so also assuring the profit with respect to the earnings. Complainant blindly believed the said promises and assurance given by the OP. It appears the complainant with a fond hope of getting high returns deposited his hard earned money as per the details mentioned in the chart noted above.<br /> <br /> 6. It appears OP kept up its promise giving monthly interest on the said deposits for few months and there after closed down its business. Neither OP refunded the said principal amount nor paid the interest leave apart share of profit. Complainant felt that they are duped and cheated. The alleged agreement executed by the complainant and the OP discloses that if there is a delay in disbursing the share of profit complainant is entitled for 18% interest. Further the said agreement discloses that the investors can seek for refund of the advance amount paid by 30 days notice in writing to the OP. <br /> <br /> 7. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. OP retained the said huge amount for months together accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. The non participation of the OP in the proceedings though aware of initiation of legal proceedings speaks loudly about the inaction and deficiency in service. In response to the demand made by the investors OP himself voluntarily informed the investors vide letter circulated dated 03.02.2006 with some commitments but failed to keep up its promise. <br /> <br /> 8. Having taken note of all these facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The approach of the OP appears to be unfair and unjust. Under the circumstances we find it is a fit case where in complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of this order till realization. In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> This order is to be complied with in two months from the date of its communication.<br /> <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 18th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> v.l.n* <br /> <br /> <br />