By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
All the cases are filed against same respondents and joint trial allowed.
CC.481/07
The case of complainant is that on 17/7/99 the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the respondent finance vide receipt No.629/99. The interest fixed was 14%. The complainant accepted interest on 10/3/05 for the period up to 9/1/03. No interest was paid later. The deposited amount also not returned. So the complainant was caused to send lawyer notice on 6/10/05. But no amount received so far. Hence the complaint.
The counter is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent firm have received the deposit as loan deposit. The respondent paid interest only up to 9/1/03. Since then the principal amount is due. The petition is filed only on January 2007 without putting any date in the copy. The averment in the complaint that interest of 30/6/03 was paid only on 10/3/05 is wrong. Both these averments are wrong and entered to cover the time bar. The complaint is not maintainable in law. The claim of complainant is time barred and liable to dismiss.
CC.482/07
The case of complainant is that on 13/7/99 the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the respondent finance vide receipt No.405/99. The interest fixed was 14%. The complainant accepted interest on 10/3/05 for the period up to 9/1/03. No interest was paid later. The deposited amount also not returned. So the complainant was caused to send lawyer notice on 6/10/05. But no amount received so far. Hence the complaint.
The counter is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent firm have received the deposit as loan deposit on 13/7/01. The respondent paid interest only up to 9/1/03. Since then the principal amount is due. The petition is filed only on January 2007. The cause of action of petition arose since 9/1/2003 as last interest was paid on 9/1/03. Thereafter there is no payment to acknowledge the debt. The claim of complainant is time barred and liable to dismiss.
CC.489/07
The case of complainant is that on 15/6/99 the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- with the respondent finance vide receipt No.604/99. The interest fixed was 14%. The complainant accepted interest on 10/3/05 for the period up to 30/6/03. No interest was paid later. The deposited amount also not returned. So the complainant was caused to send lawyer notice on 6/10/05. But no amount received so far. Hence the complaint.
The counter is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent firm have received the deposit as loan deposit on 13/7/01. The respondent paid interest only up to 9/1/03. Since then the principal amount is due. The petition is filed only on January 2007. The cause of action of petition arose since 9/1/2003 as last interest was paid on 9/1/03. Thereafter there is no payment to acknowledge the debt. The claim of complainant is time barred and liable to dismiss.
CC.490/07
The case of complainant is that on 15/6/99 the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the respondent finance vide receipt No.602/99. The interest fixed was 14%. The complainant accepted interest on 10/3/05 for the period up to 9/1/03. No interest was paid later. The deposited amount also not returned. So the complainant was caused to send lawyer notice on 6/10/05. But no amount received so far. Hence the complaint.
The counter is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent firm have received the deposit as loan deposit on 15/6/99. The respondent paid interest only up to 9/1/03. Since then the principal amount is due. The petition is filed only on January 2007. The cause of action of petition arose since 9/1/2003 as last interest was paid on 9/1/03. Thereafter there is no payment to acknowledge the debt. The claim of complainant is time barred and liable to dismiss.
The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 in all cases. No other evidence adduced by the complainant and respondents adduced no evidence.
Points for consideration are:
1) Is the claim of complainant time barred?
2) If not is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
3) If so reliefs and costs?
Points: The first point to be considered is bar of limitation. In the counter the respondents raised only one contention that the complaint is time bared. The complainant stated that the respondents paid interest only up to 9/1/03 and in spite of this principal amount is due. The complaint is filed on January 2007 and is barred by limitation. As per the Consumer Protection Act a complaint is to file within 2 years from the date of cause of action. In the present case the complaint was filed on 3/5/07. It is true that the amount was deposited on 17/7/99 and the date of maturity is mentioned in the Exhibit P1 Fixed Deposit Receipt. The complainant made a demand on 6/10/05 by sending Exhibit P3 lawyer notice. So in the case of deposit a fresh cause of action will arise from the date of demand. So the complaints are within the limitation period. The present complaints were filed on 3/5/07 and is within the period of limitation. So the complaint is found maintainable and not barred by limitation.
The deficiency in service on the part of respondents is to be decided as the second issue. According to the complainants she had ben deposited Rs.10,000/- with the Aiswarya finance on 17/7/99. She has admitted that she had received interest up to 9/1/03. After that no interest is received and principal amount also remains unpaid. The respondents have no contention with regard to these points and a detailed discussion is not necessary. It is a deficiency in service on the part of respondents in non payment of the amount.
In the result the complaints are allowed and the respondents are directed to return the Exhibits P1 amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 9/1/03 till realization with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of June 2009.
