IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.<br /> <br /> Dated this 29th day of October 2010<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 521/2010<br /> <br /> <br /> Present: 1) Sri. T.H. Narayangaowda, President.<br /> 2) Smt. Y.V. Uma Shenoi, Member.<br /> 3) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member.<br /> <br /> Complainant: 1. M.P.Venkatesh, S/o Late R.Peeranna, <br /> <br /> 2. M.N.Champa, D/o M.P.Nagaraju, Minor Rep. by first complainant, D.NO.2203/192, Medar’s Block, New Bamboo Bazar, Mysore-570002.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. H.G, Advocate)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Opponents: 1. (a) A.L.Nanjundaraja Urs, (b) Sri Rajeevalochana, M/s Chanaykya Finance Corporation Ltd., No.381, First Floor, 2nd Cross, Benki Nawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri A.L.Nanjunda Raje Urs, S/o Late Lingaraje Urs, No.725/O, IInd Cross, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 3. Sri Rajeevalochana, S/o V.V.Venkateshaiah, No.265, 8th Cross, Gallarageri, Dewans Road, Chamarajapura, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 4. Sri M.K.Biddappa, S/o H.S.Kariyappa, D.No.20, K.Badagu Village, FNC College Post, Madakeri – 571201.<br /> <br /> 5. Smt.Leelavathi, W/o M.Shivanna, No.453, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Gayathripuram, Mysore.<br /> 6. Smt.S.Nagarathna, w/o R.Srinivas, D.No.834, 1st Cross, Kammatageri, Mandimohalla, Mysore.<br /> 7. Smt.H.N.Dakshayani, W/o R.Ramesh, D.No.834, 1st Cross, Kammatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 8. Sri Jayaprakash, S/o Late Apparoo Pillai, D.No.3047, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Gokulam, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 9. Smt.Lalitha, W/o T.V.Venktaramu, No.3, Gokulam, 4th Stage, Manjunathapura, Mysore.<br /> <br /> 10. Sri A.M.Monappa, S/o A.P.Mandappa, D.No.22/41, Near Health Office, Madakeri – 571201.<br /> <br /> (O.P.1, 2 and 8 - EXPARTE)<br /> (O.P.3 by Sri A.M.B, Adv., O.P.5 by Sri S.L.P., Adv. & <br /> O.P. Nos.4, 6,7,9 and 10 by Sri B.V.R., Adv.)<br /> <br /> (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainants u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponents for directing them to pay the F.D. amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., damages of Rs.8,000/- and cost of the complaint at Rs.6,000/- etc., <br /> <br /> <br /> 2) The case of the complainants in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-<br /> That the opponent No.1 is a Partnership Firm and the opponent Nos.2 to 10 are its partners and they are running the Finance Corporation in the name of Chanakya Finance Corporation Ltd., Mysore. The opponent Nos.2 and 3 are the Managing partners of the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation Ltd. That on the pursuation of the opponents, the complainants have deposited the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the opponent’s Finance Corporation as F.D. on 10.01.2009 for a period of one year. The opponents have agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a on monthly basis. Accordingly, the opponent No.2 has issued F.D. receipt bearing No. 907 dated 10.01.2009 on behalf of the Finance Corporation. But, subsequently the opponents have failed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on monthly basis as agreed by them inspite of repeated demands. Even after the maturity of the F.D. when the complainants approached opponents for the payment of the amount, the opponents have failed to pay the said amount. Hence, the complainants have got issued the legal notice dated: 29.05.2010 to the opponents demanding them to pay the said amount along with interest. Inspite of the same, the opponents have not paid the said amount and thus they have committed the deficiency in service. Therefore this complaint is filed against the opponents for the recovery of the said amounts along with interest, compensation and costs as claimed in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3) Inspite of service of notice, the opponent Nos.1, 2 and 8 remained absent. Hence, they have been placed exparte. The opponent Nos.3, 4 to 7, 9 and 10 appeared before the Forum through their advocates and resisted the complaint by filing their versions. In their version, they have not denied the main case of the complainants regarding the deposit held by them in their Finance Corporation. But, they have taken the contention that the opponent No.2 alone was managing the affairs of the Finance Corporation in his personal capacity and therefore, he is alone liable for the transactions made by him including the amount claimed in the complaint and further they have contended that the opponent No.2 has exceeded his limits as a partner and therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount claimed in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed against them. Mainly on these grounds, the contesting opponents have urged for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. <br /> <br /> 4) After the filing of the objections, the complainants have filed the affidavit of the complainant No.1 in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of their case and closed their side. Thereafter, the contesting opponents have filed the affidavit of the opponent No.10 in lieu of evidence and other opponents have adopted the same by filing a memo to that effect and closed their evidence. Hence, thereafter both the parties have filed the written arguments and the oral arguments were also heard and then posted the case for orders. <br /> <br /> <br /> 5) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?<br /> 2) What Order?<br /> <br /> 6) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative. <br /> Point No.2:- As per final order for the following, <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7) Point No.1:- As already stated above, in order to establish their case, the complainants have filed the affidavit of the complainant No.1 in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of their case. In the affidavit, the complainant No.1 has duly sworn on oath in respect of all the averments of their case made out in the complaint. Thus the oral evidence of the complainants fully support their case made out in the complaint including the demands made by them for the payment of the F.D. amount. Apart from the said oral evidence, the complainants have also relied upon the original F.D.R. bearing No.907 dated 10.01.2009, office copy of legal notice dated: 29.05.2010, Xerox copies of C.O.P and postal receipts in support of their case. The contents of the said documents also support the oral evidence of the complainants and their case made out in the complaint. Thus, the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainants fully support their case made out in the complaint. The said evidence of the complainants is neither seriously challenged nor rebutted by the contesting opponents. On the other hand, the contesting opponents have contended that the opponent No.2 being the Managing partner, he was alone looking after the affairs of the finance corporation in his personal capacity and further he has exceeded his limits as a partner and therefore, he is alone liable for the amount claimed in the complaint and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. Thus the contesting opponents have not denied the case of the complainants. On the other hand, indirectly they have admitted the case of the complainants by saying that the opponent No.2 alone is liable to pay the amount claimed in the complaint. It appears that there is a dispute between the opponents interse and it is not a matter to be considered by this Forum. Hence, under these circumstances, we have no other alternative except to hold that the complainants have established their case by placing sufficient material on record. <br /> <br /> 8) From the facts and circumstances of the case including the material discussed above, clearly indicate that the opponents have failed to pay the F.D. amount to the complainants inspite of repeated demands and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. Therefore, they are liable to pay the reasonable compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.600/- apart from the refund of the F.D. amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the present banking rate of interest, we feel it just and reasonable to grant further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 9) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complainants are entitled for the recovery of the F.D. amount along with interest, compensation and costs as stated above. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be allowed in part in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following, <br /> :: O R D E R ::<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part and the opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay the F.D. amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest at the agreed rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit that is from 10.01.2009 till the date of maturity and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of maturity that is from 10.01.2010 till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> The opponents are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.600/- to the complainants.<br /> <br /> All the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the complainants within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> <br /> (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 29th day of October 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member. Member. President.<br /> S.R.L.<br />