COMMON JUDGEMENT<br /> <br /> The complainants in these Five 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. 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.<br /> <br /> 2. The complaints of respective complainants being common in nature reads as under:-<br /> Each complainant in the above said Five cases has invested certain amount with Respondent No-1/firm by purchasing DD of various banks on different dates for which the Respondents have given Receipt-Cum-Investment Certificates to the respective complainants for the said deposited/invested amount and have agreed to pay interest thereon as mentioned in respective certificates. The amount of investment made by each complainant is as under:-<br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Sl. No. D.D./Cheque No. and date Amount invested/deposited<br /> 1. 2. 3.<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> 1. complainant- Kishan Rao Kamnoor in DCFR No.82/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 27-12-2003. Rs. 1,00,000=00<br /> 2. On 07-06-2004. Rs. 10,000=00<br /> 3. On 04-10-2004. Rs. 30,000=00<br /> 4. On 09-10-2004. Rs. 50,000=00<br /> 5. On 09-11-2004 Rs. 1,20,000=00<br /> 6. On 07-04-2005 Rs. 1,00,000=00<br /> ----------------------<br /> Total Rs. 4,10,000=00<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> 2 complainant- Krishnamurthy Hebsur in DCFR No. 83/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 22-04-2005. Rs. 10,000=00<br /> -----------------------<br /> Total Rs. 10,000=00<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> 3 Complainant- Smt. Bharati Hebsur in DCFR No.84/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 19-02-2004. Rs. 50,000=00<br /> -----------------------<br /> Total Rs 50,000=00<br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant- Dr. (Smt) Shubha Joshi in DCFR.No. 85/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 19-02-2004. Rs. 50,000=00<br /> ------------------<br /> Total. Rs. 50,000=00<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant- Pralhad Rao Kulkarni in DCFR.No. 88/06<br /> <br /> 1. On 17-04-2005. Rs. 30,000=00<br /> --------------------<br /> Total Rs. 30,000=00<br /> <br /> On 11-07-05 the complainants in all cases gave withdrawal requisition to the 2nd Respondent for withdrawal of their deposit amount along with original/copies of Receipt-Cum-Investment Certificates requesting him to close their respective accounts and pay back/refund their entire deposited/ invested amount together with up to date interest thereon as they were in need of money for family necessities but lastly the Respondents failed to repay the same. Subsequently, again the respective complainants sent requisition for withdrawal of their deposits to both the Respondents for 2nd time by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due which were returned un-served with endorsement by Postal Authorities that the “party has left the address” and “always door locked”. In the meantime the complainants came to know that the Respondents have duped the public/depositors and thus caused loss to them.<br /> <br /> The Respondents are bound to repay the deposited amount on demands together with up to date of interest as agreed upon. The act and attitude of the Respondents amount to deficiency of service. The complainants waited for a considerable time with a profound hope that the Respondents would repay their deposited amount with interest but all in vain. Finally on 22-04-06 the complainants in the first four cases and on 22-02-06 the complainant in the last case respectively got issued legal notice through their Advocate by Speed Post Acknowledgement Due and Under Certificate of Posting to both the Respondents. The same returned un-served. So they got issued common notice which was returned back with Postal endorsement with regard to Respondent No-1 as always door locked during delivery time and with regard to Respondent No-2 ‘Return to Sender as party left’. Thereafter complainants got issued a final legal notice along with other investors/depositors by paper citation duly published in F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ Kannada daily paper on 06-05-06 in the first four cases and on 20-03-06 in the last case respectively. Despite the service of the said notice by RPAD UCP and by paper publication of citations Respondents have failed to repay the deposited sum to the respective complainants together with up to date of interest agreed. The failure of Respondents in not making payment of such deposit is a case of grave deficiency of service.<br /> The respective complainants have been suffering both mentally and physically as the Respondents have failed to repay the deposited sum so they are put to great loss on account of economic crisis in the family. Hence for all these reasons the respective Respondents have prayed for a direction to the Respondents to refund/pay back their respective 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. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, torture & harassment etc., with cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> 3. Notice of respective complainants issued to both the Respondents by RPAD returned un-served as per Postal endorsement. Hence the respective complainants moved an application U/o. V Rule 20 CPC for paper publication of notice of citation in F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ at their cost. In-spite of paper publication of notice of citation in the said paper both the Respondents remained absent when called out. So the service against the Respondents held sufficient and both the Respondents have been placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 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:-<br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Sl.No. Case No. Documents marked.<br /> 1. 2. 3.<br /> <br /> 1. 82/06 (13) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-13.<br /> 2. 83/06 (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6.<br /> 3. 84/06 (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6.<br /> 4. 85/06 (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6.<br /> 5. 88/06 (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6.<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respective complainants and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainants in these Five cases prove deficiency in service by both the Respondents in not making payment of their respective invested/deposited amount together with agreed rate of interest in-spite of their repeated demands, as alleged?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the respective complainants are entitled for the relief sought for by each of them?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. In the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainants in respective cases that they have invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/-, 10,000/-, 50,000/-, 50,000/-, 30,000/-respectively with Respondents Firm by way of DD on different dates for which the Respondents have given Receipts-Cum-Certificates to the respective complainants in respect of said invested amount agreeing to repay the same with agreed interest thereon as mentioned in the respective Investment Certificates. It is also their case that on 11-07-05 the complainant in all cases gave a withdrawal requisition to the 2nd Respondent along with original/copies of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates requesting to close their respective accounts and pay back/refund their entire deposited amount together with up to date agreed 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 were returned un-served with Postal endorsement that the party has left the address and always door-locked. In the meantime the complainants came to know that the Respondents have duped the people/depositors. After waiting considerable time with a profound hope, finally on 22-04-06 the complainants in the first four cases and on 22-02-06 the complainant in the last case respectively got issued legal notice through their Advocate by Speed Post Acknowledgement Due and Under Certificate of Postings to both the Respondents. The same returned un-served with Postal endorsement as “always door locked” with regard to Respondent No-1 and “party left” with regard to 2nd Respondent. Thereafter they got issued final legal notice along with other investors/depositors by paper citation duly published in F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ daily paper dt 06-05-06 in the first four cases and on 20-03-06 in the last case respectively. In-spite legal notice sent by RPAD, Under Certificate of Postings and in spite of paper publication of citation of legal notice, the Respondents have failed to repay the deposited amount to the respective complainants together with up to date interest agreed. The Respondents are bound to repay the deposited amount on demands made by them together with up to date of interest as agreed. The failure of the Respondents in not making repayment of deposited amount with interest amounts deficiency of service by Respondents due to which respective complainants suffered both mentally and physically and they are put to great loss on account economic crisis in the family.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainants in all cases have filed original/Attested copy of Receipts-cum-Investments-Certificates for their respective invested amount as detailed in the table at para-2 of the judgement and same are marked as Ex.P-1 to P-6 in the first case and Ex.P-1 in all remaining four cases respectively. All the respective complainants have produced copy of withdrawal application along with un-served RPAD covers containing Withdrawal Application addressed to OP 1 & 2 as shown in the table below:-<br /> Case No.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Date of withdrawal application marked as Exhibits<br /> <br /> <br /> 2 Un-served RPAD covers/courier service Receipt & Delivery Run Sheet marked as Exhibits.<br /> <br /> 3.<br /> 82/06<br /> 83/06<br /> 84/06<br /> 85/06<br /> 88/06 10-04-06 Ex.P-7.<br /> <br /> 10-04-06 Ex.P-2.<br /> 10-04-06 Ex.P-2. <br /> <br /> 10-04-06 Ex.P-2.<br /> 03-11-05 Ex.P-2. Ex.P-8 & P-9.<br /> Ex.P-3 & P-4.<br /> Ex.P-3 & P-4.<br /> Ex.P-3 & P-4.<br /> Ex.P-3 & P-4.<br /> <br /> 9) The complainants have also filed office copy of common legal notice issued through their Advocate as stated above and the same are marked as Ex.P-10 in the first case and Ex.P-5 in the last four cases respectively. The complainant in first case (DCFR.No. 82/06) has also produced un-served RPAD covers containing legal notice issued to OPs 1 & 2 and the same are marked as Ex.P-11 & P-12 respectively. All the respective complainants have also produced copy of paper publication of common legal notice got published in F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ in Kannada Daily paper as stated earlier and the same are marked as Ex.P-13 in the first case and Ex.P-6 in the remaining four cases respectively <br /> <br /> 10. As stated above, the notice issued to both the Respondents by RPAD by this Forum returned un-served with the same Postal endorsement and so the respective complainants by moving an application U/o V Rule 20 CPC and got published notice of citation in above said paper F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ and both the Respondents remained absent when called out in-response to paper publication of the notice. Hence they are placed at ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 11. From a close perusal of Receipt-cum-Investment Certificates and withdrawal application as discussed above it amply shows that each complainant has invested/deposited amount as detailed in the table at Para-2 of the judgement with the Respondents who had agreed to repay the same with interest as mentioned in respective Receipt-Cum-Investments-Certificates and failed to repay same with agreed interest in-spite of withdrawal application given to Respondents. As stated above the withdrawal application sent by them returned un-served vide Postal endorsement and that legal notice issued returned un-served vide Postal endorsement and that there was no response for the common legal notice got published in F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ kannada daily paper. Even to the notice issued to them by this Forum returned un-served with similar Postal endorsement and there was no response to the notice got published in the Kannada F £ÀªÀÄä PÀ£ÀßqÀ £ÁqÀÄ daily paper U/o V Rule 20 CPC as referred to above. These factors together go to show that the Respondents are deficient in service in not making the payment of respective invested amount to the complainants with agreed rate of interest and the conduct of the Respondents in remaining absent in the proceedings before this Forum in-spite of publication of notice as stated above shows that for the reasons best known to them they have remained absent and thereby it amounts to deficiency of service by the Respondents to the demands made by the complainants for refund of their deposited amount with interest. 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.<br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 12. The respective complainants have sought for direction for refund of their deposited/invested amount along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and for awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental tension & harassment etc., together with cost of litigation. <br /> <br /> In view of our discussion and finding on point No-1 all 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 them. Further they are entitled to interest at 10% p.a. on their invested amount from the date of withdrawal application till realization. As regard to awarding 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. 15,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> All the Five complaints are allowed in part.<br /> <br /> Both the Respondents jointly and severally shall refund the deposited amount of Rs.4,10,000/-to the complainant-Kishan Rao Kamnoor; Rs.10,000/- to the complainant-Krishnamurthy Hebsur; Rs.50,000/- to the complainant-Smt. Bharati Hebsur; Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant-Dr. (Smt) Shubha Joshi; Rs.30,000/- to the complainant-Pralhad Rao Kulkarni; respectively together with agreed interest from the date of deposits till date of their withdrawal application and further interest at 10% p.a. from the date of withdrawal application till realization on their respective invested amount. Respondents shall also to pay a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation to all the respective complainants.<br /> <br /> Both the Respondents shall comply this order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum On 13-11-06.)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath<br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.