COMMON JUDGEMENT The complainants in these Ten 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. 2. The complaints of respective complainants being common in nature reads as under:- Each complainant in the above said Ten 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:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. D.D./Cheque No. and date Amount invested/deposited 1. 2. 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. complainant- Utkur Rajendrappa in DCFR No.122/06 1. On 07-06-2004. Rs. 25,000=00 2. On 07-03-2005. Rs. 75,000=00 ---------------------- Total Rs. 1,00,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 complainant- Smt. Vijaya Lkashmi LK in DCFR No. 123/06 1. On 18-04-2005. Rs 1,00 ,000=00 ----------------------- Total Rs. 1,00,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Complainant- Narayan Rao Atre. in DCFR No. 124/06 1. On 22-03-2004. Rs. 5,000=00 2. On 05-01-2005. Rs. 10,000=00 3. On 17-01-2005. Rs. 5,000=00 4. On 07-03-2005. Rs. 10,000=00 ---------------- Total Rs 30,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Complainant- Gadwal Mangala Gowri in DCFR.No. 125/06 1. On 27-10-2003. Rs. 30,000=00 2. On 27-11-2003. Rs. 10,000=00 3. On 02-01-2004. Rs. 10,000=00 4. On 04-08-2004. Rs. 30,000=00 5. On 25-10-2004. Rs. 20,000=00 6. On 17-03-2005. Rs. 90,000=00 ------------------ Total. Rs.1.90,000=00 5. Complainant- Gadwal Malikarjuna in DCFR.No. 126/06 1. On 21-03-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 2. On 12-06-2004. Rs. 10,000=00 3. On 03-08-2004. Rs. 10,000=00 4. On 20-08-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 5. On 11-10-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 6. On 16-01-2005. Rs. 75,000=00 -------------------- Total Rs.2,45,000=00 6. Complainant- Md. Abdul Basith. in DCFR.No. 127/06 1. On 14-07-2003. Rs. 40,000=00 2. On 14-08-2003. Rs. 20,000=00 3. On 29-08-2003. Rs. 20,000=00 4. On 24-10-2003. Rs. 30,000=00 5. On 22-03-2004. Rs. 20,000=00 6. On 09-08-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 7. On 07-03-2005. Rs. 40,000=00 ----------------------- Total Rs. 2,20,000=00 7. Complainant- Smt. Vishalakshi in DCFR.No.128/06 1. On 24-05-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 2. On 03-08-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 3. On 10-11-2004. Rs. 25,000=00 4. On 15-03-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 5. On 14-02-2005. Rs. 50,000=00 6. On 06-04-2005. Rs. 25,000=00 ----------------- Total Rs 2,5 0,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Complainant- Smt. Uma .S. Pattanashetty in DCFR.No. 129/06 1. On 02-04-2005. Rs. 16,000=00 ------------------- Total Rs. 16,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Complainant- Mutalib Ali in DCFR.No. 130/06 1. On 08-07-2003. Rs. 20,000=00 2. On 19-03-2004. Rs. 30,000=00 ----------------- Total Rs. 50,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Complainant- Gadwal Narasanna in DCFR.No. 131/06 1. On 24-05-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 2. On 01-06-2004. Rs. 1,00,000=00 3. On 05-07-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 4. On 03-08-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 5. On 07-10-2004. Rs. 50,000=00 6. On 13-11-2004. Rs. 30,000=00 7. On 31-12-2004. Rs. 25,000=00 ----------------- Total Rs. 3,55,000=00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 such as Firm closed & party left. In the meantime the complainants came to know that the Respondents have duped the public/depositors and thus caused loss to them.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 31-07-06 the complainants in the 1st, & 4th to 10th cases and on 03-07-06 the complainant in the 2nd case and on 15-06-06 the complainant in the 3rd case respectively got issued common legal notice through their Advocate by RPAD to both the Respondents. The same returned un-served with same endorsement. 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 dt. 12-08-06 in the 1st, & 4th to 10th cases and on 09-07-06 in the 2nd and 3rd case respectively. Despite the service of the said notice 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. 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. 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 representations 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 by RPAD to his residential address Vasavi-Nagar Raichur, returned as refused as per postal endorsement so the service against Respondent NO-2 was held sufficient. This Respondent NO-2 remained absent when called out. So this Respondent No-2 also has 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. 122/06 (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-7. 2. 123/06 (8) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8. 3. 124/06 (11) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-11. 4. 125/06 (11) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-11. 5. 126/06 (11) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-11. 6. 127/06 (14) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-14. 7. 128/06 (11) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-11. 8. 129/06 (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. 9. 130/06 (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-7. 10. 131/06 (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-12 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respective complainants and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainants in these Ten 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? 2. Whether the respective complainants are entitled for the relief sought for by each of them? 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. 1,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 30,000/-, 1,90,000/-, 2,45,000/-, 2,20,000/-, 2,50,000/-, 16,000/-, 50,000/-, 3,55,000/-, 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 31-07-06 the complainants in the 1st, & 4th to, 10th cases and on 03-07-06 the complainant in the 2nd case and on 15-06-06 the complainants in the 3rd case respectively got issued legal notice through their Advocate by RPAD and Under Certificate of Postings to both the Respondents. The same returned un-served with Postal endorsement as Firm closed and party left. 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 12-08-06 in the 1st, & 4th to 10th cases and on 09-07-06 in the 2nd and 3rd 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. 8. The complainants 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 & P-2 in the first case, Ex.P-1 in the 2nd case, Ex.P-1 to P-3 in the 3rd case, Ex.P-1 to P-6 in the 4th & 5th cases, Ex.P-1 to P-7 in the 6th case, Ex.P-1 to P-6 in the 7th case, Ex.P-1 in the 8th case, Ex.P-1 to P-7 in the 9th case & Ex.P-1 & P-2 in the last case respectively. The complainant in the 3rd case in DCFR.No. 124/06 has also produced Notarized copy of P.F.No. (Property Form) 165/05 dt. 09-11-05 submitted by CPI East PS Raichur interalia showing the seizure of 78 Original Receipts-cum-Investment Certificates including original Receipt of the present complainant Narayana Rao Atre bearing No. 283 dt. 05-01-05 for Rs. 1,00,000/- vide DD.No. 608730 as detailed in Sl.No-60 of Para 14 of the said P.F.No.165/05. This P.F. shows seizure of all the articles (including original Receipt of this complainant) from Accused-Yadhunath Kolar who is OP.No-2 in the present case and thereby shows the deposit of invested amount by the complainant with OP.No-1 company through OP.No-2. This document is marked as Ex.P-4 in this case. 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:- Case No. Date of withdrawal application marked as Exhibits Un-served RPAD covers/courier service Receipt & Delivery Run Sheet marked as Exhibits. 122/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-3 Ex.P-4 & ExP-5 123/06 19-06-06 Ex.P-2 Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4 124/06 29-05-06 Ex.P-5 Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 125/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-7 Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 126/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-8 Ex.P-9 & Ex.P-10 127/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-7 Ex.P-10. 128/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-7 Ex.P-8 Ex.P-9 129/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-2 Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4 130/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-3 Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-5 131/06 17-07-06 Ex.P-8 Ex.P9 & Ex.P-10. 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-6 in the first case, Ex.P-5 in the 2nd case, Ex.P-8 in the 3rd case, Ex.P-10 in the 4th & 5th case, Ex.P-11 in the 6th case, Ex.P-10 in the 7th case, Ex.P-5 in the 8th case, Ex.P-6 in the 9th case, & Ex.P-11 in last case respectively. The complainant in DCFR.No. 123/06, 124/06 & 127/06 have also produced un-served RPAD covers containing legal notice issued to OPs 1 & 2 and the same are marked as Ex.P-6 & P-7 and Ex.P-9 & P-10 and Ex.P-12 & P-13. 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-7 in the first case, Ex.P-8 in the 2nd case, Ex.P-11 in the 3rd , 4th & 5th cases, Ex.P-14 in the 6th case, Ex.P-11 in the 7th case, Ex.P-6 in the 8th case, Ex.P-7 in the 9th case, and Ex.P-12 in the last case respectively 10. As stated above, the notice issued to Respondent NO-1 to his present address UTP 3666 Central Prison Parapanna Agarahar Bangalore returned duly served vide postal acknowledgement but neither authorized agent nor counsel represented for Respondent No-1 UTP.No. 3666. Hence he has been placed Ex-parte. Similarly the notice issued to Respondent NO-2 by RPAD by this Forum returned as Refused vide postal endorsement so holding the service as sufficient against Respondent No-2, this Respondent remained absent when called out. So he was also placed Ex-Parte Hence both the Respondents are Ex-parte in this case. 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 Respondent NO-1 by this Forum to his present address as UTP.No. 3666 Central Prison Parapanna Agarahar Bangalore returned duly served but there was no representation on behalf of this Respondent No-1. So he has been placed Ex-parte. Similarly the notice issued to Respondent No-2 by RPAD by this Forum returned as Refused vide postal endorsement and holding the service as sufficient and this Respondent NO-2, when called out remained absent so he was placed Ex-parte. 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. POINT NO.2:- 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. 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: COMMON ORDER All the Ten complaints are allowed in part. Both the Respondents jointly and severally shall refund the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant-Utkur Rajendrappa; Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant-Smt. Vijayalakshmi LK.; Rs.30,000/- to the complainant-Narayana Rao Atre; Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant-Gadwal Mangala Gowri; Rs.2,45,000/- to the complainant-Gadwal Malikarjuna; Rs. 2,20,000/- to the complainant-Md. Abdul Basith; Rs. 2,50,000-/- to the complainant-Smt. Vishalakshi; Rs.16,000/- to the complainant-Smt. Uma S.Pattannashetty; Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant-Mutalib Ali; and Rs. 3,55,000/- to the complainant-Gadwal Narasanna 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. Both the Respondents shall comply this order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum On 28-12-06.) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Pampannagouda, Member District Forum-Raichur. On leave. Smt.Kavita Patil, Member. District Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
