BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 20^th of October 2010

PRESENT

                                           SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT                

                                                                SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                                                              SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.197/2010

(Admitted on 17.7.2010)

Maurice D’Souza,

S/o late Deoge D’Souza,

Residing near Mukti Complex,

Kallige Cross, Kaikamba,

Jodu Marga, Bantwal Taluk,

D.K. District, presently residing at

C/o Stella Valentine,

Kapikad House, Bejai,

Mangalore.                                                  …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri B.M.Duggappa)

          VERSUS

1. Managing Director,

Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Private Limited,

#874, 1^st Floor, Raineo House,

Dr.M.C.Modi Hospital Road,

West of Chord Road,

Bangalore-86.

2. The Manager,

Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Private Limited,

Divisional Office, 3^rd Floor, Sanu Palace,

P.V.S.Circle, Kodialbail,

Mangalore-3.

3. Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Private Limited,

Represented by Managing Director,

No.93, 1^st Floor, LIC Office,

Sankaramata Circle,

Bangalore.                                     ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Parties: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant submits that, the Opposite Party No.1 is a Private Investment Company having its branch office in several parts of Karnataka.  The Opposite Parties approached the Complainant and represented that they have profitable business of Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Private Limited and told that if the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- for 20 years, it would be paid annual dividend of Rs.5,000/-,  further on the maturity of the said deposit in Teak Bond, the Complainant would get a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.  Accordingly, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Opposite Party, they have issued Teak Bond as well Guarantee cum Performance Deed dated 15.12.2004 executed in favour of the Complainant.  As per the scheme of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant issued annual dividend warrant and assured that the annual dividend will be paid on the date of maturity every year.  It is stated that, the Complainant was issued annual dividend warrant from 16.11.2005 to 16.11.2014.  The Complainant presented the dividend warrant and he was paid till 2007 and thereafter not paid the dividend warrant despite of submitting for the year 2008-2009.  And further it is stated that the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties but they have failed to pay the same. Thereafter, the Complainant constrained to issue legal notice dated 23.4.2010 calling upon the Opposite Parties to pay entire deposit amount as well as dividend for the year 2008 and 2009.  But the notice was returned with the endorsement as ‘Firm Left’.  Thereafter, the Complainant issued a notice to the address furnished by the Opposite Party No.3 along with copy of the notice dated 23.4.2010, the said notice was duly served on 12.5.2010 but the Opposite Parties neither complied nor made any attempt to reply the said notice. Hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant immediately and also to pay dividend amount of Rs.10,000/- for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of deposit till the realization and further pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Party No.3 by RPAD and rest of the Opposite Parties notice returned as ‘Firm Left’.  Opposite Party No.3 despite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.3.

We have further noticed that, as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2  taken paper publication in ‘Vijaya Karnataka’.  Despite of that Opposite Party No.1 and 2 also neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 also in this case. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as Court Document No.1 to 3.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Maurice D’Souza (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint.   Ex C1 to C8 were produced for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.   Since, the Opposite Parties placed exparte, no evidence available on record on behalf of them.  Complainant produced written notes of arguments

          We have heard and perused the arguments, pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the Complainant and answer the points are as follows:

                             Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                             Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.       

REASONS

5.  POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

In the instant case, the Complainant came up with a Complaint stating that, he had invested Rs.50,000/- with the Opposite Parties under Teak Bond for the period of 20 years and produced Ex.C1 i.e. Teak Bond and Ex.C2 i.e. Guarantee Cum Performance Deed executed by the Opposite Parties in favour of the Complainant.    The above said Guarantee Cum Performance Deed in Clause No.2, it is agreed by the Opposite Parties that, the Complainant was issued a Teak Bond valuing Rs.2,00,000/- on the maturity date and in between the Complainant was also issued annual dividend warrant from 16.11.2005 to 16.11.2014 i.e. 10 annual dividend warrant for Rs.5,000/- each and the Complainant must present the said dividend warrant on the maturity at the end of the year.  The Complainant in his affidavit stated that, the Opposite Parties paid the annual dividend warrant for the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 i.e. Rs.5,000/- each.  But for the year 2008 and 2009, the Opposite Parties failed to pay the dividend despite of issuing notice.  Hence, came up with this Complaint.

          On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the Complainant before this FORA, we find that, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the Teak Bond with the Opposite Parties for the period of 20 years as per Ex.C1.  On maturity, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.  The Ex.C2 i.e. Guarantee Cum Performance Deed shows that, the Opposite Parties are agreed to pay annual dividend warrant from 16.11.2005 to 16.11.2014 i.e. total 10 annual dividend warrant for Rs.5,000/- each.  The Complainant in his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination stated that, the Opposite Parties paid annual dividend warrant of Rs.5,000/- each from 16.11.2005 to 15.11.2007 and thereafter i.e. for the year 2008 and 2009 not paid despite of issuing notice.  The Complainant also issued legal notice dated:23.4.2010 to the Opposite Parties calling upon to pay annual dividend warrant to him as agreed by the Opposite Parties as per Ex.C4.  But in the instant case, we have noticed that, the Opposite Parties are failed to pay the annual dividend warrant as agreed by them for the year 2008 and 2009 and thereafter.  We have further noticed that, the Opposite Parties despite of receiving version notice by way of paper publication and Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, Bangalore received the version notice by RPAD, but not bothered to contest or represent the case till this date.  The entire affidavit of evidence filed by the Complainant is not controverted nor contradicted by the Opposite Parties in this case.  The entire oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite Parties despite of receiving Rs.50,000/- from the Complainant under Teak Bond and agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- after the maturity but during the period between 2005 to 2014, the Opposite Parties agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- each as annual dividend warrant to the Complainant.  The evidence led in support of Complainant’s case supported by documents is convincing and credible and it is proved that the Opposite Parties failed to pay the annual dividend for the year 2008 and 2009 in this case.     Under that circumstances, no prudent investor intended to continue the investment made with the Opposite Parties, because the service rendered by the Opposite Parties in this case amounts to deficiency. 

          In view of the above discussions, we hold that, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment.  Apart from the above the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as annual dividend warrant due from them for the year 2008 and 2009.  Further Rs.2,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses which includes the cost of the paper publication. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint is allowed.  The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment to the Complainant.  Apart from the above the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as annual dividend warrant due from them for the year 2008 and 2009.  Further Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of October 2010.)

        PRESIDENT

         MEMBER                                                       MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Maurice D’Souza– Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 16.11.2004: Teak Bond

Ex C2 – 15.12.2004: Guarantee Card and Performance Deed

Ex C3 – 16.11.2004: Deposit Receipt.

Ex C4 – 23.4.2010 : Office copy of Regd. Lawyer’s notice.

Ex C5 –                : Returned envelop in 2 numbers.

Ex C6 –                :Acknowledgment.

Ex C7 – 5.5.2010  : Copy of Notice.

Ex C8 –                : Postal Receipts.

Court Documents:

Doc No.1 to 3: Postal Acknowledgements.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

-NIL-

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

-NIL-

Dated:20.10.2010                            PRESIDENT