BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 19th April 2010
COMPLAINT NO.32/2010
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A., L.L.B., President
2. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
3. Smt. Lavanya M. Rai, Member
BETWEEN:
1. K.Ramani Devi,
Aged about 62 years,
Wo V.Krishna Kedilaya,
Ro Geetha, Kujappady House,
Vittal Kasaba Village,
Bantwal Taluk, D.K.
Represented by her GPA
Holder Sri.V.krishna Kedilaya.
2. V.Krishna Kedilaya,
Aged about 72 years,
S/o V.L.Kedilaya, R/o Geetha,
Kujappady House,
Vittal Kasaba Village,
Bantwal Taluk, D.K. …. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri.Mohana.A)
VERSUS
Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Registered Office at Manipal House,
P.O. Manipal -576 119, Udupi District.
Represented by Sri T.Narayana Pai.
Managing Director, Manipal Finance
Corporation, Manipal House,
Manipal, Udupi District. …. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Opposite Party: Appeared in person.)
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The Complainants submits that, Complainant No.1 and 2 deposited the amount mentioned in Item No.1 to 10 in their names with the Opposite Party in branch office at Vittal, Bantwal Taluk. The details of which are furnished in the schedule here below:-
Sl. No. | Certificate No. | Date of Deposit | No. of debts | Rate of Interest | Date of Redemption | Matured Amount |
1 | 007284 | 30.3.2001 | 10 | 12% | 30.03.2006 | 10,000 |
2 | 007285 | 30.3.2001 | 5 | 12% | 30.03.2006 | 5,000 |
3 | 007286 | 30.3.2001 | 1 | 12% | 30.03.2006 | 1,000 |
4 | 032597 | 01.02.2002 | 10 | 10% | 01.02.2007 | 10,000 |
5 | 032598 | 01.02.2002 | 5 | 10% | 01.02.2007 | 5,000 |
6 | 012265 | 23.10.2001 | 10 | 10.5% | 23.10.2006 | 10,000 |
7 | 012266 | 23.10.2001 | 2 | 10.5% | 23.10.2006 | 2,000 |
8 | 012267 | 23.10.2001 | 10 | 10.5% | 23.10.2006 | 10,000 |
9 | 012268 | 23.10.2001 | 2 | 10.5% | 23.10.2006 | 2,000 |
10 | 009875 | 30.03.2001 | 10 | 12% | 30.03.2006 | 10,000 |
At the time of depositing the money they have agreed to repay the same with interest. But now the Opposite Party closed its branch office at Vittal and the Complainant approached the Opposite Party at Manipal for repayment of amounts along with deposit receipts. But the Opposite Party has failed to pay the same amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon’ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay matured amount along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. That the Opposite Party not appeared but sent one letter by post, wherein they have stated that the subordinated debt certificates which can issued only by a registered office of a company, the branches of any company are not authorized to allot shares and debt certificates and there is no indication whatsoever either on the fact or on the obverse side of the debt certificate that they were issued at Vittal or Puttur. It is stated that this FORA has no territorial jurisdiction to try the Complaint and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint on this count. And further it is contended that the subordinated debts were due for payment on a fixed date i.e. 20.3.2006, 1.2.2007, 23.10.2006 the above claim is a barred by limitation and Complaint is not maintainable.
The third defence taken by the Opposite Party is that Shreyus Certificates are not deposit certificate. They are simply subordinate debt Bonds/promissory Notes. Hence there is not consumer dispute and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3. On the basis of pleadings, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Whether the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant – Sri. V.Krishna Kedilaya (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex C1 to C11 were produced for the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not filed their counter affidavit.
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) to (iii): Affirmative.
Point No.(iv) & (v): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINT NO.(i):
As far as issued No.(i) is concerned, it is admitted that the Opposite Party in this case issued Ex.C1 to C10 to the Complainant for the amount deposited by him.
Financial service is one of the services specifically mentioned in Clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act. It is a settled law that when a company/firm transacting non-banking financial business accepts deposits from the public, the person who has deposited money with such company/firm, hires the service of that Company/firm, which has accepted the deposits. We have, therefore hold that service undertaken to be rendered by the Opposite Party is a service within the meaning of the Act and the Complainant is consumer.
As far as limitation is concerned, sub Section (2) of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act states that not withstanding anything contending Sub-Section (1), the complaint may be entertained after the specified period, if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum within such period. Now it is a well-established proposition that when the person who received the fixed deposit has failed to repay the deposit on the date of maturity, it is a recurring cause of action for the depositor so long as the person who received the deposit has not denied his liability to repay the deposit. The Opposite Parties have no case that they have denied the Complainants’ right to recover the deposit until they filed their version before this Forum. The Complainants’ right is denied for the first time in the version. Therefore, we are of the view that, the Complainant has recurring cause of action until and unless it has been proved that the entire deposited amount has been paid to the Complainant. Hence, the point No. (i) is held in favour of the Complainant.
POINT NO.(ii):
As far as issue No.(ii) is concerned, the subject deposited amount deposited by the Complainant before the Opposite Party at Vittal of Bantwal Taluk D.K.District. The amount has been matured/the dates mentioned in the Ex.C1 to C6 respectively. The said deposits in spite of maturing not paid to the Complainant that means the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and just because the branch office at Vittal is closed the right of filing complaint before this Hon’ble Forum will not taken away by the Opposite Party. Since the part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence, the point No. (ii) is also held in favour of the Complainant.
POINTS NO.(iii) to (v):
The Ex.C1 to C10 produced by the Complainant in the case go to show that the amount has matured for redemption on the date mentioned therein, which date has been already expired. The Opposite Party Company has admitted the deposit and issued the receipts to the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party issued a receipt for acknowledging the deposit and agreed to pay interest on the date of redemption mentioned therein. When such being the case it is the duty bound to repay the amount along with interest as agreed by them on the date of maturity/redemption. It is a settled position that once the non-banking financial institutions/company/firm accepts the deposit from the public, the person who accepted the deposits shall refund the same along with the interest. But in the given case the Opposite Party Company has admitted the deposits but failed to repay the same on the date of maturity or within the reasonable time thereafter is a deficiency in service. The contention taken by the Opposite Party that Shreyus Certificates are not deposit certificates, they are simply subordinate Debt Bonds/Promissory Notes which is not acceptable in this case. Therefore we hold that, the Opposite Party i.e. Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant No.1 a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand only) and the Complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.34,000/- (Rupees Thirty four thousand only) under the Shreyus Certificates mentioned in Sl. No. 1 to 10 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum respectively from the respective date of deposit till the date of payment.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. 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 Party i.e. Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant No.1 a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand only) and the Complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.34,000/- (Rupees Thirty four thousand only) under the Shreyus Certificates mentioned in Sl. No. 1 to 10 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum respectively from the respective date of deposit till the date of payment. And further Rs.1,000/- 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 free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of April 2010).
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA) (SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI)
