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

DATED 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To pay Rs.8,09,750/- from ten deposits with interest of 1.5% per month from the date of the case to till realization.
2. To grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
3. Grant cost of Rs.20,000/- for litigation
4. And for any other order as the court may deem fit.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The OP was doing financial business and had solicited deposits from general public through wide publicity offering attractive rates of interest on deposit at 1.5% p.m.  The complainant being attracted by the better rate of interest and adequate security for the deposits had invested Rs.3,50,000/-.  At the time of the deposit the OP had promised the complainant to repay the amount on maturity debts after three years and agreed to give monthly interest at 1.5% p.m.  The OP have not paid the interest and failed to return the deposit amount. The OP is liable to pay the principal amount and interest on total from three deposits amounting to Rs.8,09,750/-. 

3. The OP has not taken any action to repay the principal amount with the applicable interest.  The complainant had approached the OP finance and personally requested the OP for repayment but the OP pleaded time to repay the amount.  The OP has issued cheque dated 04.04.2021 and requested the complainant not to present the same.  The OP has not returned the amount after maturity till today. At last the complainant has got issued legal notice on 14.08.2023 and inspite of service the OP has not complied the demands or issued any reply to the legal notice. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.

4. In response to the notice, OP has not appeared before this Commission. Hence OP placed exparte.

5. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 12 documents. 

6. Heard the arguments of advocate for the complainant. Perused the documents.

7. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents filed by the complainant.
10. Inspite of issue of notice, OP remained absent. Hence OP neither challenged the allegations made in the complaint and also documents and they remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence and documents of the complainant.
11. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleadings of the parties goes to show that the complainant attracted by the offer made by the OP who was doing financial business has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.11.2015, Rs.1,50,000/- on 08.05.2017 and another Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.04.2013 totally Rs.3,50,000/- with the OP organization and the OP agreed to return the amount together with interest at 1.5% p.m., with maturity value of Rs.5,39,000/- payable on the maturity date respectively of the amount for which the OP has issued a receipt for the same as per Ex.P1 to P8.

12. It is settled proposition of law that if the F.Ds are matured, it is the duty of the concerned Bank/ or any financial institution to inform their customers for taking back the matured sum, if not to re-deposit with notice to their customers as per the decision reported in 2021(2) CPR 597 (NC) – Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Lakshwinder Singh where in it is held that – “Any customer who deposits amount under reinvestment plan is under assumption that the FDR will be renewed either till he approaches or gives any other specific instruction to the Bank”.
13. In the instant case, the complainant has sought for the matured sum covered under the said receipt for which he made several correspondence to the OP but by one or the other pretext, OP had dragged the matter and finally issued a cheque dated 04.04.2021 as per Ex.P9, with a request to the complainant not to present the same. At last the complainant has issued a legal notice to the OP as Ex.P10 and inspite of the service of the notice the OP neither replied nor complied the demand without just reasons.  In this context, we are of the opinion that the OP service is not up to the mark which is nothing but deficiency in service much less unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we direct the OP to release the matured sum with interest at the rate of 12% by way of compensation from the date of complaint till the date of realization with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 is partly in affirmative.

14. Point No.3:  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant u/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,09,750/- from three deposits with interest at 12% p.a., in the form of compensation from the date of complaint to till the date of realization  with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 15% p.a. after expiry of 60 days on Rs.8,09,750/- till final payment.
4. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^TH day of FEBRUARY 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL