BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                                   Dated this the 30^th JULY 2016

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :  HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI        :   HON’BLE MEMBER                                         

ORDER IN

           C.C. No 143/2016

                    (Admitted on 23.4.2016)

Mathias.D.Souza,

S/o. Gasper D Souza,

Aged 52 years,

Moorkodi House,

Permude Post,

Bajpe Village,

Mangalore, D.K.

                                                                …… COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for complainant by Sanjay D)         

VERSUS

Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd.,

Regd. Office: Manipal House,

Manipal.

Represented by Chairman,

Sri T. Narayana Pai.

……. OPPOSITE PARTy

(Opposite party  in Ex parte)                                           

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

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

The brief facts of the Case are as follows:

The Complainant contended that the Opposite Party has been running a financial institution having its Head Office at Manipal i.e.,  the Opposite Party has launched various deposit schemes offering attractive rate of interest on deposits.  The Complainant attracted by the advertisements had invested in Sowbhagyalaxmi Cash Certificate with the Opposite Party at Surathkal Branch.  The particulars of the deposit is as under 

It is stated that the Opposite Party is bound to pay the deposited amount on the date of maturity and promised to pay interest at 10% p.a.  The Complainant approached the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party sought some time to pay the same stating that he is in financial difficulty and will make arrangements to repay the amount.  The Complainant submits that on humanitarian grounds the Complainant waited for some

time even thereafter the amount due under the above certificate has not been paid by the Opposite Party inspite of repeated demands.  All amicable sorts of settlement of the dispute have gone vain.  It is

contended that withholding the fixed deposit/non-payment of the above fixed deposit amount amounts to deficiency in service and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon ble Forum 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 Parties to pay Rs.38,510/ with interest at 10% p.a. from 15.03.2002 till payment and claimed compensation and cost of the litigation expenses.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party filed version through post. The first contention taken by the Opposite Party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. 

          contended that the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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 complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
4. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Mrs. Mathias.D.Souza (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint.  Ex C1 marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.  Opposite party not led any evidence.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments of the Parties and answer the points are as follows:  

          Point No.(i): Affirmative.

          Point No.(ii): Affirmative.

          Point No.(iii) to (v): As per the final order.   

                                                                       Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) and (ii):

The first plea taken by the Opposite Party is that the complaint is

barred by limitation.  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.  

Sub Section (2) of Section 24 A 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. In the present case, the Cash Certificate matured on the date mentioned in the schedule.

On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that the Complainant deposited the hard earned

money under the Fixed Deposit Receipts with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party in turn agreed to refund the amount along with the interest on the date of maturity mentioned in the respective F.D.Receipts.  We are of the considered opinion that, in a case of like this nature reciprocal promises were enshrined in the contract/certificate entered/issued between the parties are  obliged to perform in that Order. No doubt the Complainant invested certain sum of money under the Fixed Deposit Receipts for a particular period with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party in-turn received the invested amount from the Complainant and agreed to refund the aforesaid amount along with the interest on the date of maturity.  When that being so, it is the obligation on the part of the Opposite Party to refund the amount to the Complainant on the date of maturity because the Opposite Party made use of the money pertaining to the Complainant in their finance and agreed to refund the amount with interest.  When that being the position, the Opposite Party should have refunded the amount to the Complainant without any demand.  As we know, the financial institutions are facing financial crunches and caused problems to the depositor and keep on seeking/postponing the payment by giving one or the other reasons are common in a case of like this nature.  By considering the transactions involved in the above case, we are of the opinion that, cause of action will be continued till the payment invested under the certificate are received by the Complainant.  It is not the case of the Opposite Party that, they have offered the payment on the date of maturity or subsequent dates till this date.

Now it is a well established proposition that when the person/company/institution 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 Complainant’s right to recover the deposit until they filed their version before this Forum.  The Complainant’s right is denied for the first time in the version.  Therefore, we are of the view that, the cause of action will continue till such time the payment along with interest is made.  Hence the cause of action will continue as stated above and the complaint is maintainable not barred by limitation.

Point No.(iii) to (v):

The Ex C1 produced by the Complainant in this case goes to show that the amount has matured for repayment on the date mentioned therein which date has been already expired.  The Opposite Party Company has admitted the deposits and their failure to repay the same on the date of maturity or within a reasonable time thereafter is a deficiency in service.  Therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties i.e., Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited represented by its Managing Director is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.38,510/ being the maturity value under the cash certificate No.189860 along with interest at 10% p.a. from 15.03.2002 till the date of realization.  However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed.

Interest is always inclusive of compensation.  And further Rs.3,000/ 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.  Opposite Parties i.e., Manipal

Sowbhagya Nidhi Limited represented by its Managing Director is hereby

directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.38510 (Rupees thirty Eight thousand Five hundred and Ten only) being the maturity value under the cash certificate No.189860 along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of maturity till  the date of realization.  And further 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 free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of July 2016)

         PRESIDENT                                                      MEMBER

(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)                                   (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                    D.K. District Consumer Forum

         Mangalore.                                                     Mangalore.                           

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Mathias. D Souza

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1  Date: 17.03.2002 Original of the Fixed Deposit No.089860

                     Issued by the Opposite Party.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

 Nil 

Dated:30.07.2016                                  PRESIDENT