BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT. DCFR NO. 33/07, 34/07. 35/07 & 38/07. THIS THE 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2007. 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER. COMPLAINANTS :- Katti Achar C.N. (34 Years),S/o. Late [In DCFR NO. 33/07] Narashimhachar Chikkasugur, Occ: Self Employed, R/o. H.No. 7-4-59, Gajgar Pet, Raichur (Karnataka) [In DCFR NO 34/07] :- Smt. Sharada D Murthy (38 years), W/o. Dakshina Murthy, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 7-4-59, Gajgar Pet, Raichur (Karnataka) [In DCFR NO 35/07] :- Smt. Padmaja S.K. (42 years), S/o. Surendarcharya Kortakundi, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 7-4-59, Gajgar Pet, Raichur (Karnataka) [In DCFR NO 38/07] :- J. Madhav Rao (38 Years), S/o. J. Venkob Rao, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 7-5-18, Jawaharnagar, Raichur (Karnataka) //VERSUS// COMMON RESPONDENTS:- 1. Mr. K.N. Srinivas Shastry, The Managing Director of M/s. VINIV-INC (Venus-V) Bangalore, Now in Central Jail (UTP No. 3666), C/o. The Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara Bangalore-100 (Karnataka) 2. Mr. Yadunath Kolar Raichur Branchs Agent & Authorized Signatory of M/s. VINIV-INC (Venus-V) R/o. H.No. 7-7-2/4, Vasavi Nagar, Raichur- 584 103 (Karnataka) CLAIM :- For refund of invested amount with interest and compensation. Date of institution. [In DCFR NO.33/07] :- 23-04-07. 34/07 & 35/07 [In DCFR.No.38/07] :- 28-04-07. Notice served on . [In DCFR.No. 33/07, 34/07, ] :- 30-10-07. 35/07 & 38/07 Date of disposal :- 20-12-07. Complainants represented by Sri. Sripad, Advocate. Opponents No. 1 & 2 Exparte. ------ These cases coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. COMMON JUDGEMENT The complainants in these Four cases have filed separate complaints U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the common Respondents- (1) M/s. VINIV-INC (Venus-v), by its Managing Director Mr. Srinivas Shastry and (2) VINIV-INC branch Office Raichur by its Agent and Authorised Signatory Mr. Yadunath Kolar for deficiency of service. The complaints of the complainants being common in nature seeking similar relief of refund of money so they are clubbed and disposed of by common judgement. 2. The complaints of respective complainants being common in nature reads as under:- Each complainant in the above said four case has deposited a certain amount with Respondent No-1/firm through Respondent NO-2 by way of Demand Drafts on different dates for which the Respondents have given Receipt-Cum-Investment Certificates to the respective complainants for the said deposited amount and agreed to pay interest thereon as shown in the Investment Certificates. The amount of investment made by each complainant is as under:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. D.D./Cheque No. and date Amount invested/deposited 1. 2. 3. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. complainant- Katti Achar C.N. in DCFR No.33/07 1. On 22-03-2004. Rs. 15,000=00 2. On 24-05-2004 Rs. 55.000=00 3. On 09-08-2004. Rs. 35,000=00 4. On 08-04-2005. Rs. 1,00,000=00 ------------------ Total Rs. 2,0,5000=00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 complainant- Smt. Sharada.D.Murthy in DCFR No. 34/07 1. On 11-04-2005 Rs. 5,000=00 ----------------- Total Rs. 5,000=00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 complainant- Smt. Padmaja S.K. in DCFR No.35/07 1. On 09-08-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 ---------------- Total Rs 50,000=00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 complainant- J. Madhava Rao in DCFR.No. 38/07 1. On 09-08-2004 Rs. 20,000=00 2. On 11-04-2005 Rs. 10,000=00 3. On 25-04-2005 Rs. 5,000=00 ------------------ Total. Rs. 35,000=00 On 11-07-05 the complainants in all cases gave withdrawal requisition along with copies of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates to the Respondent No-2 requesting him to close their respective accounts and pay back/refund their entire deposited amount together with up to date interest thereon as they were in need of money for family necessities but Respondent No-2 has not shown any suitable responsibility. Subsequently they again sent requisition for withdrawal of their deposit to both the Respondents for 2nd time on 06-03-07 by RPAD which have been served on Respondent NO-1 but not served on Respondent NO-2 and returned back with the endorsement such as Continuous 7 days not found Return to sender. In meantime the complainants came to know that the Respondents have duped the public and thus caused loss to them. The Respondents are bound to repay the deposited/invested amount on demands together with up to date of interest as shown in the certificates. The act and attitudes of the Respondents amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants waited for a considerable time with a profound hope that the Respondents would repay their deposited amount along with up-to-date of interest but all in vain. Therefore they got issued legal notice on 23-03-07 through their Advocate by RPAD & Under Certificate of Posting to both the Respondents. Thereafter they met other investors/depositors also who had not been paid their money. Thus a common notice was got issued wherein the name of each complainant shown in the said notice. This notice has been duly served on the Respondents. Despite the service of legal notice Respondents failed and neglect to repay the deposited sum together with upto date interest. The failure of Respondents in not making the payment of the invested sum amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant have been suffering both mentally and physically as the Respondents have failed to repay their deposited amount and so they have been put to great loss. Hence for all these reasons complainants have prayed for a direction to the Respondents to refund/pay back their deposited/invested amount along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and further direction to pay Rs. One Lakh as compensation for mental tension, torture & harassment etc., 3. In-response to service of notice to Respondent NO-1 sent by RPAD to his present address as UTP.No. 3666 Central Prison Parapanna Agrahara Bangalore, there was no representation by Respondent NO-1 either through his authorized agent or lawyer. So Respondent NO-1 has been placed Ex-parte. Similarly the notice issued to Respondent No.2 returned as Refused vide postal endorsement so holding the service as sufficient the Respondent NO-2 when called out he remained absent and so Respondent No-2 has also been placed Ex-parte. 4. During the course of enquiry the respective complainants have filed their sworn affidavit as evidence and have got marked following documents in-support of their case as under:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Case No. Documents marked. 1 2 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 33/07 (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. 2. 34/07 (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. 3. 35/07 (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-7. 4. 38/07 (8) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Heard the arguments of the counsel for respective complainants and perused the records. The following points arise for consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainants in these four cases prove deficiency in service by both the Respondents in not making payment of their invested/deposited amount together with agreed rate of interest in-spite of his repeated demands, as alleged? 2.Whether the respective complainants are entitled for the relief sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2.As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. It is the case of the complainants in respective cases that they have invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 2.05,000/-, 5,000/-, 50,000/- & 35,000/- respectively with Respondents Firm by way of Demand Drafts on different dates for which the Respondents have given Receipts-Cum-Certificates agreeing to repay the same with agreed rate of interest thereon as mentioned in the respective Investment Certificates. It is also their case that on 11-07-05 they gave a withdrawal requisition to the 2nd Respondent along with copies of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates requesting to close their respective accounts and to pay back/refund their entire deposited amount with interest thereon. But the Respondents failed to repay the same. So they again sent withdrawal requisition to both the Respondents for 2nd time by RPAD which has been served on Respondent NO-1 but not served on Respondent No-2. In the meantime they came to know that the Respondents have duped the people/depositors. After waiting considerable time with a profound hope, finally got issued a legal notice on 23-03-07 through their Advocate by RPAD to both the Respondents. Despite of service of said legal notice the Respondents have failed and neglected to repay the deposited sum which amounts to deficiency in service and due to which they suffered both mentally and physically and put to great loss on account of economic crisis in their family. 8. The complainant in the first case has filed four original Receipts-cum-Investments Certificates. The complainant in the 2nd & 3rd case have filed one original Receipt-cum-Investment Certificate and the complainant in the last case has filed three Receipts-cum-Investment Certificates to show their respective invested/deposited amount as detailed in table at Para-2 of the judgement and the same are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 in the first case, Ex.P-1 in the 2nd & 3rd case and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 in the last case respectively. All the complainants have produced copy of deposit withdrawal requisition dt. 06-03-07 which is marked as Ex.P-5 in the first case, Ex.P-2 in the 2nd & 3rd case and Ex.P-4 in the last case, they have produced postal acknowledgement of the Receipt of the same by Respondent NO-1 which is marked as Ex.P-6 in the first case, Ex.P-3 in the 2nd & 3rd case and Ex.P-5 in the last case. The complainants have also produced un-served RPAD Envelope containing deposit withdrawal requisition addressed to Respondent No-2 which is marked as Ex.P-7 in the first case, Ex.P-4 in the 2nd & 3rd case and Ex.P-6 in the last case they have also produced office copy of legal notice dt. 23-03-07 issued to both the Respondents which is marked as Ex.P-8 in the first case, Ex.P-5 in the 2nd & 3rd case and Ex.P-7 in the last case. The complaint in the 3rd case in DCFR.No. 35/07 has filed postal acknowledgement of the receipt of the legal notice by Respondent NO-2 which is marked as Ex.P-6. All the complainants have also produced confirmation letter issued by Superintendent of Post Office Raichur regarding the service of legal notice on Respondent NO-1 which has been marked as Ex.P-9 in the first case, Ex.P-6 in the 2nd case, Ex.P-7 in the 3rd case and Ex.P-8 in the last case 9. From a close perusal of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates and withdrawal application as discussed above it amply shows that complainants have invested/deposited amount with the Respondents who had agreed to repay the same with interest as mentioned in respective Receipt-Cum-Investments-Certificates as stated above and failed to repay same with agreed rate of interest in-spite of withdrawal application given to Respondents. As stated above in-spite of service of legal notice the Respondents failed to repay the same which amounts to deficiency in service. Further even to the notice issued by this Forum, to their respective address both Respondents remained absent and there was no representation on their behalf and so they have been placed Ex-parte. These factors together go to show that the Respondents are deficient in service in not making payment of respective invested amount to the complainants along with agreed rate of interest and the conduct of the Respondents in remaining absent in the proceedings before this Forum in-spite of service of notice shows that for the reasons best known to them they have remained absent and therefore we hold that the complainants have proved deficiency in service by both the Respondents and so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainants have sought for direction for refund of their respective deposited/invested amount along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and for awarding compensation of Rs. One Lakh for mental tension & harassment etc., together with cost of litigation. In view of our discussion and finding on point No-1 the complainants are entitled for refund of their deposited/invested amount with agreed rate of interest from the date of investment till withdrawal application filed by him. Further they are entitled to interest at 10% p.a. on the invested amount from the date of withdrawal application till realization. As regard the claim of compensation is concerned having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above we feel justification to allow a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: COMMON ORDER The complaints of the complainants are allowed in part. Both the Respondents jointly and severally shall refund the deposited/invested amount Rs. 2.05,000/- to the complainant-Katti Achar C.N., Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant-Smt. Sharada D Murthy; Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant- Smt. Padmaja S.K.; Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant J. Madhav Rao respectively together with agreed interest from the date of deposits till date of withdrawal application and further interest at 10% p.a. from the date of withdrawal application till realization on invested amount. Respondents shall also to pay a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation to all the respective complainants. Both the Respondents shall comply this order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to all complainants and to both the Respondents who are Ex-parte forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum On 20-12-07.) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
