Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present :Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday 25th day of February, 2004
C.D.No.05 /2004
V.Rama Devi,
D.o.11-117/5/2,
Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri P.Siva Sudarshan
-Vs-
Managing Director,
Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
H.no.1-0597-12, 1st Floor,
Valmiki Nagar, Domala guda,
Lower Tank Bund Road,
Near Mysamma Temple Lane,
Near Indian Express Office.
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party.
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party for the payment of maturity amount of the fixed deposit receipts No.C451000416 at RS.12,000/- each totaling to i.e., Rs.60,000/- with interest at 24% from the date of the maturity and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complaint along with such other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 23-06-1997 an amount of Rs.6,000/- each was deposited by the complainant and her minor children with the opposite party for a period 3¾ years for an maturity value of Rs.12,000/- and in token of the said deposit the opposite party issued F.D.R. No.C 4511000482 to C 4510000416 dated 23-06-1997 and a temporary receipt bearing No.6891 dated 23-06-1997. On maturity on 21-06-2001 the complainant has sent on the original F.D.R. receipt to the opposite party requesting for their mature amount and the opposite party acknowledged it vide acknowledgement in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 dated 21-06-2001 informing them under that the payments shall be made as per company Law Board order dated 29-02-2000 and another letter dated 24-04-2002 that his amounts shall be paid on or before August, 2002. Thereafter the opposite party kept quiet and did not arrange the due amounts and the conduct of the opposite party in avoiding the due payment is amounting to deficiency of service and caused the mental agony and suffering and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal.
3. In-spite of the service of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party neither turned up to the proceedings nor made any contest to the complainant’s case disowning of its liability and thus remained exparte.
4. The complainant in support of its case relied upon the documentary record marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case and the documents.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in its defaultive conduct of nonpayment of the mature amount and thereby his entitleness to the reliefs claimed for.
6. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are the attested Xerox copies of the F.D.R. Nos. 45110000412 to C 4510000416 dated 23-06-1997 issued to the complainant by the opposite party receiving Rs.6,000/- from the complainant over four minor children there under, and they envisages further to pay the said amount with interest on 23-03-2001 as Rs.12,000/- each. Their original were said to have been submitted to the opposite party by the complainant duly discharging it for the payment of the mature amount. The Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 the acknowledgement of the opposite party envisages the surrender of the original F.D.R. to the opposite party by the complainant for the payment of the mature amount by the opposite party. The Ex.A6 is the temporary receipt dated 23-06-1997 issued to the complainant as the customer copy, in token of Rs.6,000/- each from the complainant and her four minor children. The Ex.A9 is another letter date d 22-04-2002 of the opposite party addressed to the complainant assuring the payment of the amount of above said five F.D.Rs on or before to August, 2002. The factum in Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were not denied by the opposite party and as the said material is reiterated in the complainants sworn affidavit the factum envisaged in those exhibits it is remaining conclusively established as to the privy of the complainant with the opposite party on account of the said deposit and the liability of the opposite party to fulfill with the commitment and the payment of the mature amount as stipulated in the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.
7. When a Company or Firm invite deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and the Depositor is Consumer as per the decision of the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Rajee -Vs- Amog Industries and another reported in 1993 CPR Page 345.
8. The Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the Sanchayani Saving Investment (India) Limited -Vs- Vatsala Baba Saheb Gaikward reported in 2003 (1) CPJ 260 holds the Financial institutions deficient in its service in not Honouring the commitment, when amount under various deposits with accrued benefits are not released to the depositors. In the light of the above two decisions the conduct of the opposite party in not paying the mature amount to the complainant as stipulated under ex.A1 to Ex.A5 is amounts to a clear deficiency of service on the part the opposite party constraining the complainant to seek his redressal under the provisions of the C.P. Act.
9. The Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 acknowledgement letters of the opposite party besides acknowledging the receipt of the F.D.R. of the complainant, which matures on 23-03-2001 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- each, expresses its intention to pay the due amounts of the Depositor as per Company Law Board Order dated 29-02-2000. The complainant’s F.D.R. matures on 23-03-2001. The order of the Company Law Board date to 29-02-2000. But there is no material on record to the effect that the said due mature amount of the complainant’s F.D.R. were paid as alleged in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 or as alleged in Ex.A9 further as per the decision of the Honourable High Court of A.P., in the Prudential Capital Marker, Calcutta -Vs- the State of A.P. Department of Law and others reported in 2000 (5) ALTT 465 the provisions of the R.B.I. Act or the companies Act do not either expressly or impliedly bars the jurisdiction of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act from entertaining applicability by the Depositors raising the Consumer Dispute claiming the repayment of the deposits made from the non banking Finance Company as the remedy under the C.P. Act is an Additional remedy and not, in derivation of the remedy available to approach the company Law Board under the provisions of the R.B.I. Act the intendment of which his to protect the man where the remedy under ordinary Law is illusory. Therefore, the depositor may approach either the Consumer Forum or Company Law Board and hence the remedy available under the C.P. Act seems to be not taken away either by the R.B.I. Act or by the Companies Act. As the above remedy is available to the Depositor and not to the non banking Finance Company there appears no justifiable excuse in the conduct of the opposite party in not repayment the mature amount to the complainant taking shelter under the Company Law Board proceedings and in fact not complying the payment as stipulated in Ex.A9 even. Hence in the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the opposite party in not complying either with the liability under the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 letter under said in the Company Law Board order or under Ex.A9 in any true spirit and sense so far also exposing the deficiency conduct of the opposite party in not making the repayment of the mature amount to the complainant. Therefore, there appears every justification to the compliance in approaching the Forum seeking the reliefs under the C.P. Act for realization of the due amounts from the opposite party arising out of the deficient service conduct of the opposite party.
10. Even though the complainant has made out his cause of action against the opposite party the further point remaining for the consideration is to what reliefs the complainant is justified in the exigencies of the case for being ordered against the opposite party.
11. No stipulation or the condition appears in the documentary record adduced by the complainant obligating the opposite party to pay at 24% interest the over due the matured amounts as stipulation in the Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 says interest will cease on the maturity of the deposit unless the contract for renewal of the deposit is made a fore-night before due date along with the fresh application form. Hence there appears no justification in the claim of the complainant for the interest at 24% per annum the date of the maturity till realization of the said amount. But as the opposite party as with held the maturity amounts which if would have been paid to the complainants due date it may have earned interest even if no deposit with Bank. Hence the complainant shall be entitled to the Bank rate of interest at 9% per annum on the mature amount for the over due period. The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the costs and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony. But on the circumstances of the case an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony appears to be justifiable.
12. Hence, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the mature amount of RS.12,000/- under each of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 with 9% interest from the date of the maturity along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs, within a month from the receipt of this order. In default, the opposite party shall be liable to pay the awarded amount with12% interest from the date of the default till realization of the entire amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open
Court this the 25th day of February, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :- Nil For the opposite party :- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Fixed deposit receipt No.45110000415 of the V.Mahesh Kumar Guardian V.Rama Devi the matured amount of Rs.12,000/-.
Ex.A2 Fixed deposit receipt No.45110000416 of the V.Mahesh Kumar under Guardian ship of his mother V.Rama Devi the matured amount of Rs.12,000/-.
Ex.A3 Fixed deposit receipt No.45110000414 of Baby V.Pallavi under Guardian ship of her mother V.Rama Devi the matured amount of Rs.12,000/-.
Ex.A4 Fixed deposit receipt No.45110000413 of Baby V.Pallavi under Guardian ship of her mother V.Rama Devi the matured amount of Rs.12,000/-.
Ex.A5 Fixed deposit receipt No.45110000412 of the complainant for Rs.12,000/-.
Ex.A6 Temporary receipt dated 23-06-1997 issued by Branch Office, Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Kurnool.
Ex.A7 Acknowledgement dated 21-06-2001.
Ex.A8 Acknowledgement dated 21-06-2001 issued by opposite party.
Ex.A9 Letter date d 22-04-2002 addressed by opposite party to the complainant as to the repayment of deposits and before August, 2002.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- NIL
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
