BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th November 2014
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.3182014
(Admitted on 6.9.2014)
Krishna Bhat,
So Shankara Bhat,
Kana Mane, Alike Post,
Bantwal Taluk 574 235. …… COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: Appeared in person)
VERSUS
Manager,
Manipal Soubagya Nidhi Ltd.,
Manipal House
Manipal576 119, ….OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Smt.Manjula N.A.)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. The above complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party i.e Manipal Soubagya Nidhi Ltd., Represented by its Manager claiming certain reliefs
The brief facts of the complaint is as under
The Complainant stated that, he had invested certain sum of money with the Opposite party at Vittla Branch, D.K. District as mentioned in herein below:
Sl.No. | CertificateFolio No. | Deposited amount | Rate of Interest | Date of Deposit | Redemption Date | Matuity value |
1. | 008556 | Rs.17,500 | 11% | 16.6.2001 | 17.6.2002 | Rs.19,483 |
2. | 002834 | Rs.37,000 | 10% | 1.2.2002 | 1.2.2007 | Rs.59,570 |
3. | 001564 | Rs.37,000 | 10% | 1.2.2002 | 1.2.2007 | Rs.59,570 |
4. | 004348 | Rs.49,000 | 10% | 1.2.2002 | 1.2.2007 | Rs.78,890 |
It is stated that, according to the terms and conditions of the certificates, the Opposite Party had agreed to pay at the respective rate of interest per annum in respect of the amount mentioned herein above and the certificates were matured on respective date of mentioned herein above. However, the complainant had approached several times along with certificates so as to take the maturity value but the Opposite Party postponing the payment of amount on one pretext or other and failed to keep up their promise and thereby committed deficiency in service and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay amount mentioned in list along with interest from the date of deposit till date of realization also claimed compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party filed version stated that, the investment receipts annexed to the complaint is not with Opposite Party but with some other company with distinct legal entity on whom the Opposite Party has no control or authority whatsoever. One of the investment receipts is not in the name of the Complainant and also it is held with some other company. The Opposite Party denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Sri.Krishna Bhat (CW1) Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and got marked Ex C1 to C7. On behalf of Opposite party, one Mr.Srikar Mallya (RW1), G.P.A holder of O.P. Company and got marked Ex.R1.
On the basis of pleadings, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have heard and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the respective parties and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Points No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
We have perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, admittedly the Complainant had invested Rs.17,500 with the Opposite Party on 16.6.2001 and Opposite Party agreed to pay interest at 11% per annum. It is also seen that the maturity date 17.6.2002 as per Ex.C3.
Further we noted that the Ex C4 to C6 are not related to the Opposite Party. The Complainant had invested under the Shreyus certificates with the Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd.
Now the point for consideration is that, on perusal of the affidavit filed by the Complainant appears that in normal course no person will keep quite without demanding the amount invested by them in any of the banking institutions including the Opposite Party finance. We find that, the Complainant had invested his hard earned money with the Opposite Party finance under good faith believed that the Opposite Party will repay the amount after the maturity date. But in the instant case, it clearly shows that, the Complainant believed the oral assurances of the Opposite Party that they will refund the amount along with the interest within reasonable time even after maturity. But after several approaches the Complainant came to know that Opposite Parties are not ready to refund the amount invested under the above certificates and their oral promise went in vein. Hence approached this FORA.
It is a settled position of law that, after the maturity of the above said amount, the Opposite Party is duty bound to repay the invested money along with interest to the Complainant as agreed by them. But even after the date of maturity the Opposite Party not refunded the amount under the above certificates. On the other hand, the Opposite Party assured the Complainant and postponed the payment. As we know the investment made by the Complainant is not a debt. In other words, the Opposite Party company not financed the above said amount to the Complainant. But it is known fact that, the invested money by the Complainant has been utilized by the Opposite Party in their finance business and now without refunding the same to the investor herein the Complainant on the date of maturity or within reasonable time appears to be perverse. Since the Opposite Party not paid the amount till this date, we hold that the cause of action in case of like this nature is continuing one. However, in the instant case, the amount was matured on the respective date mentioned in Ex.C3, the Opposite Party not refunded the amount till this date and hence the service rendered by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and the Opposite Party liable to refund the entire amount mentioned in Ex.C3.
As far as Ex.C4 to C6 are concerned, the Complainant has to file a fresh complaint against Manipal Finance Corporation Limited and it cannot be recovered from this Opposite Party and the same cannot be considered.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hereby directed the Opposite Party i.e. Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited represented by its Authorized Signatory shall pay Rs.17,500 (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant along with interest at 11% per annum (contractual rate) from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and further interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization to the Complainant. And pay Rs.3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited represented by its Authorized Signatory shall pay Rs.17,500 (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant along with interest at 11% per annum (contractual rate) from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and further interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization to the Complainant. And pay Rs.3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The F.D.R., if any, deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th November 2014.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
