Karnataka

Mysore

CC/10/231

Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayath (R) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation (R) - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2010

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/231

Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayath (R)
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation (R)
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 231/10 DATED 20.07.2010 ORDER Complainant The General Secretary, Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayath ®, 356, I stage, Visweswara Nagar, Mysore-570008. (In person) Vs. Opposite Party The Managing Partner, M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation ®, No.381, 2nd cross, Benkinawab street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore-570001. (By Sri. K.P.M., Advocate) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 03.06.2010 Date of appearance of O.P. : 18.06.2010 Date of order : 20.07.2010 Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 2 days PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in Finance Service, in not paying the FDR amount after maturity. 2. The opposite party appeared before the Forum through advocate. Four times matter was posted for filing version on the request of the learned advocate. Even cost was imposed. Ultimately learned advocate filed retirement memo, but by the considered order, it as been rejected. 3. No version for the opposite party is filed. For the complainant written argument-cum-affidavit is filed. No arguments, for the opposite party advanced. We have perused the entire records. 4. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought? 5. Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons. REASONS 6. Case of the complainant is that, he invested by two FD No. 610, dated 04.05.2008 renewed up to 04.05.2010 and another No. 322 dated 09.03.2008 renewed up to 09.03.2010, each for Rs.20,000/-. On both FDR opposite party paid agreed interest at 12% p.a. On maturity of the FDR complainant requested the opposite party, for payment of the FDR, but there was no response. One more notice was sent to the opposite party by the complainant requesting to make payment of the FDR. A request was made by opposite party to wait for some time. But there is no response. Hence, it is prayed to direct the opposite party to pay the amount of both the FDR as well as compensation and cost. 7. To substantiate the facts stated in the complaint, copies of the FDR are produced. So also copy of notice and reminder sent by the complainant to the opposite party, calling upon to pay the amount of FDR are produced. Complainant has also filed his affidavit. Considering the facts stated in the affidavit and the documents prima-facie, the complainant has proved that, he had invested the amount in FDR and on maturity, in spite of requests, amount has not been paid. As noted earlier, though the opposite party appeared before the Forum through advocate, no version is filed and there is no denial of the case and claim of the complainant. 8. Accordingly, following order. ORDER 1. The complaint is partly allowed. 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of the order with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint (03.06.2010) till realization. 3. Further the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant, towards cost of the proceedings. 4. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 20th July 2010) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member




......................Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
......................Sri A.T.Munnoli
......................Sri. Shivakumar.J.