Before the District Forum Kurnool

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 the 23^rd day of February, 2005

C.D.No. 142/2004

K. Srilatha,

H.No.1-3-101-10,

Bheem Nagar,        

Gadwal,

Mahaboob Nagar Dist.                                    . ..Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                                            Sri P. Siva Sudarshan.

  -Vs-

Managing Director,

Nagarjuna Finance Ltd,

H.No. 1-597-12,

1^st Floor, Valmiki Nagar,

Domalaguda,

Lower tank bund road,

Near Mysamma Temple lane,

Near Indian express Office,

Hyderabad.                                                     . . . Opposite party

O R D E R

(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Member)

1.         This consumer dispute case of the complainant is under section 11 & 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party for the payment of maturity amount of the fixed deposit receipt No. C 45110000222 of Rs.5,000/- and another FDR No. C45110000220 of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 24 percent per annum from the date of maturity to till the date of realization Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the complaint along with such other reliefs in the exigencies of the case demands.

2.         The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 1.6.1997 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on his behalf and Rs.5,000/- on behalf of her minor daughter K.Ayswarya  for period of 45 months with rate of interest @ 20.31 percent per annum with the opposite party through his Kurnool Branch the opposite party also issued FDRs bearing No. C 45110000222 and C 45110000220 which will be matured on 1.3.2001, after maturity the complainant is entitled the maturity amount of Rs. 10,000/- on each. After maturity of the said original bonds the complainant submitted the said bonds to the opposite party and requested him to pay maturity amount at an early date, even though nearly two years were elapsed from the maturity date for the payment of matured amount, the opposite party not paid the amount.  But on 1.2.2002 opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating that as early as possible company shall pay the maturity amount to the complainant, but so far the opposite party not paid the said maturity amount to the complainant. This conduct of 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.         Inspite 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 dis-owning of its liability and thus remained exparte.

4.         The complainant in support of its case relied upon the documentary record marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 besides to his sworn-affidavit in reiteration of its case and the documents.

5.         Hence, the point for consideration whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in its defaultive conduct of non-payment of the matured amount and there by his entitleness to the reliefs claimed for?:-

6.         The Ex A.1 is an original temporary receipt No. 6812 dt 1.6.1997for Rs.5,000/- and Ex A.2 is an another original temporary receipt No. 6913 dt 1.6.1997 for Rs.5,000/- the said receipts were issued by Kurnool Branch on behalf of the opposite party for the said amounts received from the complainant.  The Ex A.3 is the original acknowledgment dt 26.7.2001 of the opposite party in token of the receipt of the said F.D.Rs, the Ex A.4 is the letter of opposite party dt 01.02.2002 which envisages that the opposite party got permission from the Company Law Board for disposing of assets and approached RBI for its clearance. On getting clearance from the RBI the opposite party is with an intention of taking drastic steps for speedy realization for sale proceeds enabling the opposite party to clear of its liability in a free flow manner at the earliest possible time.  The factum in Ex A.1 to A.4 were not denied by the opposite party and as the said material is re-iterated in the complainant’s 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 full fill with the commitment and the payment of the matured amount as stipulated in the FDRs.

7.         When a Company or a Firm invite deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and the depositor is a consumer as per the decision of the National Consumers 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 honoring 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 matured amount to the complainant as stipulated under the said FDRs 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.         Hence, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the matured amount of Rs.20,000/- for the said two FDRs  with 20.31  percent interest per annum from the date of maturity along with Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards costs within a month of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 23 rd day of February, 2005.

PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant                                                                            For the opposite party

           -Nil-                                                                                                      -Nil-

List of Exhibits Marked

For the complainant                                                                            For the opposite party

Ex. A.1 Is the attested Xerox copy

Of FDR NO. C 450801798 dt 18.4.97                                                          - Nil-

Issued to the complainant by the

Opposite party.

Ex A.2 Is an original temporary

Receipt No. 028283 dt 18.4.1997

For Rs.10,000/-.

Ex A.3 Acknowledgement dt 26.7.01

(Attested Xerox copy).

Ex A.4 Letter dt 1.2.2002 of the

Opposite party to the complainant.

PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                                                       MEMBER