COMPLAINT FILED: 30.12.2010

DISPOSED ON: 13.04.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

13 APRIL 2011

  PRESENT :-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                             PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                MEMBER                   

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                         MEMBER

       COMPLAINT NOs. 3026, 3030/2010

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER

These are the complaints filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the whatever amount they have deposited in the deposit scheme launched by OP along with current rate of interest, telephone expenses of Rs.1,000/- and traveling expenses of Rs.1,000/- and xerox, typing, DD expenses of Rs.1,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

          As the OP in both the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.

2.    The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under:

Complainants became the member of the deposit scheme launched by the OP and made the deposit as shown in the table below and entered into MOU dated 28.08.2009, 05.10.2009. Complainant’s made payment by way of cheque to OP.  The said deposit shall be locked in the firm of OP for a fixed period of 4, 6, 10, 12 and 18 months and further agreed that the MOU shall not be subsisting after lapse of agreed period of time and shall be treated as cancelled with mutual consent. As per MOU dated 05.10.2009 the deposit shall be locked in the firm of OP for a period of 6 months from 03.09.2009 and ends on 04.03.2010. Further agreed that after lapse of agreed months complainant would be entitled for refund of the deposit amount along with additional amount of Rs.5,000/-. OP has issued a post dated cheques as shown in the table below drawn on ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants in both the complaints towards discharge of the OP’s obligation under the contract.  Further agreed that this deposit was terminated before the deposit time period mentioned in MOU. In case depositor / complainants whishes to do so they are eligible to collect only deposited amount and not eligible for any additional amount by returning MOU and OP has issued postdated cheques at the time of entering the MOU. On presentation the said cheques returned with an endorsement funds insufficient. As per the agreed terms OP failed to refund the same. Complainants contacted OP personally visited many times but every time they were told that amount due will be cleared within two or three days.  Again after four days complainants approached OP. OP assured the complainants that he will clear the amount within two or three days. Inspite of lapse of one year complainants did not get any amount till date.  For no fault of them complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. For the convenience sake details of the amount paid by the complainants date and number of cheques, receipts number and date and number of the post cheques issued by OP, date and number of the MOU, date of dishonour of cheques, amount due by OP are noted below in the table. Though each one of these complainants have invested in the scheme launched by OP during the period of August, September 2009 they were unable to reap the fruits of their investments because of the hostile attitude of the O.P. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants for refund of amount along with interest in their favour went in futile.  Thus these complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such they are advised to file these complaints seeking the reliefs as stated above.

3.      After registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP. In spite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte.

4.      In order to substantiate the complaint averments each of the complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced receipts issued by OP and post dated cheques issued by OP, MOU dated 28.08.2009 and 05.10.2009. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Heard the arguments of the complainants.

5.      It is contended by each of the complainants that they lured away with the offer of deposit scheme launched by OP, who claims to be a registered partnership firm involved in business of buying and selling lands and developing layouts, deposited the amount with the OP firm as shown in the table. To substantiate these facts complainants have produced receipts issued by OP and post dated cheques issued by OP. As per the MOU dated 28.08.2009 and 05.10.2009 the amount deposited by the complainants shall be locked in the business of OP for a fixed period of 6, 8, 10, 12 and 18 months from the date of the MOU and ends on after the lapse of the agreed period of time. Further it was agreed that the MOU shall not be subsisting after lapse of agreed time period and shall be treated as cancelled with mutual consent. Further it was agreed that after lapse of agreed period of time the complainants are entitled for refund of deposit amount along with additional amount of Rs.5,000/-. On the date of MOU itself OP issued postdated cheques drawn on ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards each deposit made by the complainants towards discharge of its obligation.  But on presentation of cheques for encashment all the cheques issued by OP came to be dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient. We have perused the dishonoured cheques and endorsement issued by the bank.  Hence complainants approached this Forum.

6.      We have perused the unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced by each of the complainants.  There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainants.  From the absence of the OP we can draw the inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. OP having accepted the amount under the deposits scheme has failed to refund the matured amount. Even the post dated cheques issued by OP are dishonored. Inspite of repeated requests OP failed to refund the deposit amount along with additional amount of Rs.5,000/- on each deposit, as per the MOU entered between the parties.  This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service against the OP.  Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that each of the complainants are entitled for refund of each deposit amount along with additional amount of Rs.5,000/- and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of dishonour of cheques and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to each.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaints are allowed in part.

          1.  In complaint No.3026/2010 OP is directed to refund Rs.20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.03.2011 to till the date of payment along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

          2.      In complaint No.3030/2010 OP is directed to refund Rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.03.2011 to till the date of payment along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.

This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.3026/2010 and copies of it shall be placed in other respective files.

Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13^th day of April 2011.)

                                                  PRESIDENT

MEMBER                                          MEMBER