Karnataka

Kolar

CC/50/2014

Sri. S. Munivenkatappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maithri Plantation & Horticulture (P) Ltd.,& Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

K.V.Narayana Swamy

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23.09.2014

  Date of Order : 22.04.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated   22^nd  APRIL 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. N.B. KULKARNI                        …….      PRESIDENT

Sri. R. CHOWDAPPA                       ……..     MEMBER

 

CC No. 50 / 2014

 

Sri. S. Munivenkatappa,

S/o. Late Chikkasonnappa,

Major,

Muttakadhally Village,

Shivarapatna Post,

Malur Taluk,

Kolar Dist.

 

(By K.V. Narayanaswamy, Adv.)                            ……. Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 

1. The Manager/Administrator,

Maithri Plantation & Horticulture (P) Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Gokul Complex,

M.B. Road, Kolar – 563 101.

Kolar District.

 

2. Sri. L. Madhava Reddy,

Chairman & Managing Director,

Maithri Plantation & Horticulture (P) Ltd.,

N.5, Master’s Mansion,

Opp. Power Office,

Kurnool Road,

Ongole,

Andhra Pradesh.

 

(Ex-parte)                             …… Opposite Parties

 

 

ORDER

 

By Sri. N.B. KULKARNI,  PRESIDENT

 

This Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to pass an order directing the OPs to refund Rs.1,00,000/- together with Rs.12,000/- along with costs and other necessary reliefs.

 

2.       The brief disclosure of averments in the complaint is as hereunder:

          The OP No.2 is stated to run the Maithri Plantation & Horticulture Private Limited as its Chairman & Managing Director having Head Office in premises bearing No. 5/37(1), Masters Mansion, Opp. Power Office, by the side of Kurnool Road, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh – 523 002.   And that the OP No.1 being the regional office in the 1^st Floor, Gokul Complex, M.B. Road, Kolar, was being managed by  its Manager/Administrator and that this OP No.2 was to control all branches in Karnataka. 

 

          It is contended that the Ops were to deal in purchasing and selling of landed properties, by raising money from public for the duration of three years and as a security had issued certificate in respect of landed property bearing Sy. No.197 Kathaganagere, Nagalamadike Circle in Pavagada Taluk of Tumkur District, that measured 3000 sq. ft.

 

          It is further contended that the plan was declared vide No.22 and he (the complainant) was assured of Rs.2,000/- interest per month on investment of Rs.1,00,000/- for the duration of 36 months, and that at the end of three years the principal amount would be refunded and the security document would be collected back.   And that for the investment made the Ops issued “Own Your Land Certificate No. 481992, dated 04.02.2013 branch No.106 and receipt No.4246789.   And that the end period was to be on 19.02.2016.    And that the cheque book came to be issued by the Ops (Share Holder Payment instrument as per Ops).   And that in the month of November 2013 when the said instrument was presented for encashment,  he was told to come back after two days.   And that on again approach being made it was noticed that office of the OP No.1 was under lock.   Thus, the said sum of Rs.12,000/- has been claimed as due for 6 months as per the following table:

 

Sl. No.	Cheque No.	Date	Balance Interest Amount
1	481992	04.11.2013	2,000/-
2	481992	04.12.2013	2,000/-
3	481992	04.01.2014	2,000/-
4	481992	04.02.2014	2,000/-
5	481992	04.03.2014	2,000/-
6	481992	04.04.2014	2,000/-
		Total	12,000/-

 

3.       On receipt of the said complaint the case came to be registered on said day vide said number.  On 31.01.2015 the Learned Predecessor passed an order placing the OPs ex-parte as they failed to put in appearance inspite of publication of notice in newspaper.

 

4.       On 28.02.2015 the Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted affidavit evidence of the complainant.    On 20.04.2014 the Learned Counsel for the complainant also submitted written arguments along with memo with two documents, being the contended Certificate along with agreement of sale and Share Holder Payment Booklet.    Heard the oral arguments as submitted by the said Learned Counsel.  

 

5.        On the basis of the assertions made in the complaint and evidence on record the following points arise for our consideration.

 

(i)      Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(ii)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief?

 

(iii)    What Order ?

 

6.       Our findings to the above points are:

 

(i)      In the affirmative

 

(ii)     In the affirmative

 

(iii)    As per final order

 

REASONS

 

7.       Point Nos. (i) & (ii) – As these points do deserve common course of discussion and to avoid repetition in reasonings, the same are taken for consideration at a time. 

 

          Averments made in the complaint stood supported by affidavit evidence and said documentary evidence, which have remained unopposed.    As such the Ops are guilty of deficiency in service, in as much as having received the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.02.2013, not only failed in their commitments but have remained inaccessible  to the complainant, hence the affirmative findings.

 

8.       Point No. (iii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

 

1. The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,500/- as hereunder.

 

2. The OPs stand directed to refund principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- plus the said sum of Rs.12,000/- thus total sum of Rs.1,12,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint being 23.09.2014 till realization. 

 

3. Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 22^nd April 2015.

 

 

 

 

      MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT