F.A.No.11/2008  against C.C.No.817/2007,   Dist. Forum-I,Hyderabad .

Between:

M/s. Infomax BPO

Reptd.  by its Managing Director

Sri S.Kalesh, S/o.late Shaik Mastan,

Aged about  52 years, Occ:Business,

Address; Plot no.157, Road No.14,

Banjarahills, Hyderabad.                                      ….  Appellant/

                                                                              Opp.paty

           And

1.Abdul Majeed Lakhani ,

   S/o.Rajbhali Lakhani,

   Aged about 59 years, Occ:Self Employee,

   R/o.206, Amar Apartment, P.G.Road,

   Secunderabad-3.

M

2. anish  M.Vaidya, S/o.late Mansoor Vaidya,

    Aged about 26 years, Occ:Self Employee,

    R/o. 401 , Aditya Nest Apartments,

    1-10-73, Begumpet, Hyderabad.                        … Respondents/

                                                                            Complainants

Counsel for the Appellant         :     M/s. M.A.K.Mukheed

Counsel for the Respondents    :    M/s.K.V.R.Chowdary    

CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT  AND

SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF  AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order :(Per  Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                                ****

Aggrieved by the order in   CC.No.817/2007 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad ,  the opposite party preferred this appeal.

   The brief facts as out in the complaint are that the   complainants are unemployees  and the opp.party  is engaged  in the business of providing  equipment for  call center and  the complainants attracted by the representations of opp.party   approached  them  to take the equipment for 17  work stations  along with other necessary equipment like computers,  network, Audio Codes etc. to run the call center for eking out their livelihood.     The opp.party promised to  provide all the facilities such as Electricity, the Bandwidth and support staff on deposit of Rs.1,70,000/- towards security  deposit.  The opp.party agreed to provide all the facilities  and the complainants have entered into an agreement  for usage of call center equipment on 21.7.2006 and paid  Rs.1,70,000/-  towards security deposit to the opp.party.  The opp.paty stated that the  said  security deposit amount is refundable  after the expiry of agreement.  The complainant submits that the opp.party is liable to pay the interest as they have  failed to provide any of the equipment as promised by them for running the call center though they have received the security deposit.  The complainants on several occasions approached the opp.party and requested to supply the equipment for running the call center but the opp.party has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other.  The opp.party has changed  their  address   and not informed the same to the complainants.  The complainants submit that   as the opp.party expressed  inability to supply the equipment,  they have  demanded  to refund the  security deposit with penal interest and  compensation but the opp.party paid only a part of the security deposit amount in instalments to a tune of Rs.1 lakh  and did not pay  the balance of Rs.70,000/-. The complainants got issued  a legal notice  to the opp.party  dt.25.7.2007  calling upon them    to refund the balance security   deposit amount   together with interest  and compensation .  The said notice was received by the opp.party but there was no response from them. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.party  to refund Rs.70,000/- being the balance of the security deposit together with  interest @ 18@ p.a. from 21.7.2006  till the date of realization, to pay Rs.1000/- per day towards the loss of income from 21.7.2006 till the date of payment of full amount and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

Though notice  was served on  the opp.party,  it   returned with an endorsement  ‘unclaimed’,  hence was set exparte. 

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced  i.e. Exs.A1 to A3    partly allowed the  complaint directing the opp.party to refund the balance amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest  at 12%  p.a. from 21.7.2006  till the date of realization payable to the complainants  along with Rs.10,000/- as  compensation and Rs.2000/- towards legal expenses.    

Aggrieved by the said  order,  the opp.party preferred this appeal.

A brief perusal of the  record  shows that  Ex.A1 is  the Agreement for usage of call centre  equipment  entered  into between the opposite party  and the complainants   according to which the appellant/opposite party will  let out all the facilities needed to run  the business of the complainants  and allotted 17 work  stations   along with necessary equipment, the rent fixed for 17  work stations   is Rs.1,02,000/- per  month  at  Rs.6000/- per  seat along with Bandwidth. The complainant herein as per the terms of the agreement has deposited Rs.1,70,000/-  as security  deposit which is  refundable  after expiry of the agreement by adjusting  any rental dues and  any damages of the equipment in work station.  The period of the agreement is  two years commencing from 24.7.2006.  The appellant/opp.party has to arrange the necessary support for the smooth running of the operations of the complainants and the complainants  should make their  own arrangements  for other  services   like  calling voice minutes, transportation and food etc.   It is the complainants’ case that they have  paid the entire  security deposit of Rs.1,70,000/-  to the opposite party  which is refundable  after expiry of the  agreement, but the opposite party did not  supply any of the  equipment for  running call center  and has been postponing  the same on one pretext or the other. Thereafter  the opposite party changed the address which was not even informed to the complainants and even after repeated requests  the opposite party did not supply   the equipment, hence they   sought for refund  of the security deposit and the opposite party refunded Rs.1 lakh  but kept the balance of Rs.70,000/-  and  vide  Ex.A2  the complainants got issued legal notice dt.25.7.2007  to the opposite party calling upon them to refund  the balance of Rs.70,000/-  with interest, compensation and damages.

The learned counsel for the  appellant/opp.party contended that no notice was served to them in the District Forum  and that they do not have any knowledge  about the   case.   A perusal  of the record of the District Forum clearly shows that  the notice was returned ‘un-claimed’   and therefore it is  deemed to be served.  It is the appellant/opp.party’s case  that the respondents  could not run the call center   due to administrative problems and wound up their business  and  the respondents   being their tenants left  the premises without paying rents to the  appellant/opp.party  and  that   they have suppressed    receipt of  payment of Rs.1 lakh towards full  and final satisfaction and  hence no future  claim can be sought.  We observe from the  record  that there is no evidence filed even at the appellate stage  to establish that this Rs.1 lakh was received by the complainants towards full and final satisfaction. The contention of the appellant/opposite party  that the respondents being their tenants  have left the premises without paying any rents to the  appellant is not substantiated by any documentary evidence  and there is no denial  on behalf of the appellant  with respect to non supply of equipment. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the  order of the   District Forum with respect to refund of Rs.70,000/-.  However Ex.A1    agreement clearly states that  it is interest free deposit  refundable  after expiry  of the agreement  by adjusting rental dues and damages of the equipment at work station.  Since the rental dues could not be established by the appellant/opposite party by way of any documentary  evidence  we confirm the order of the  District Forum with respect to refund of Rs.70,000/-, but set aside the   interest awarded  at 12% p.a.  since as per the terms of the agreement (Ex.A1)  it  is  an interest   free deposit.  Even otherwise  Rs.10,000/-  was awarded by way of compensation by the District Forum.  Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view we are of the opinion that  since compensation has already been awarded by way of damages, awarding of interest  once again  is not justified. 

In the result  this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside  the interest portion only  of 12% awarded by the District Forum, while confirming the  rest of the order of the District Forum.  Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                                        DT. 12.8.2010