IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 601 to 605/10 DATED 20.08.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in <br /> CC 601/2010 : T.S.Lalitha, W/o H.R.Sundareshan, No.702, Upstairs, 17th Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore-9.<br /> Complainant in <br /> CC 602/2010 : G.L.Nagaraj Urs, No.1117, 17th Main, E Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore-8.<br /> Complainants in CC 603/2010 : G.N.Mohan Raje Urs, NO.245, 2nd Cross, Vinayaka Nagar Extension, Krishnaraja Nagar-571602, Mysore District.<br /> Complainant in <br /> CC 604/2010 : G.L.Puttaraje Urs, Gagenahally, Bilikere (SPO) – 5711103, Mysore District.<br /> Complainant in <br /> CC 605/2010 : Nanjaraje Urs, No.1118, 5th Cross, Vivekananda Nagara, Mysore-23.<br /> (Mr.G.L.Nagaraj Urs, Representative)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party : The Managing Partner, M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation (R), No.381, 2nd cross, Benkinawab street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore-570001.<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints : 27.07.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : EXPARTE<br /> Date of order : 20.08.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Though the complainants are different, opposite party is common and so also, the facts alleged and the grievance of the complainants being same except the F.D. amount and the dates, for convenience, all the complaints are being disposed off by the common order.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaints, it is alleged by the complainants that, opposite party is a Finance Institution. Opposite party offered to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the F.D. Since, it was more than the Nationalized Banks, to earn extra interest, the complainants deposited the amount with the opposite party described in detail at the end of the order. Opposite party also agreed to refund F.D. amount before maturity date, if one month notice is given. Opposite party paid interest as agreed from time to time, but not paid the interest from the dates shown in the table of the order. Complainants sent notice to the opposite party, calling upon to refund the amount. There is no response. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party did not claim the notice sent by the Forum through RPAD. Holding that, it is sufficient service, opposite party is placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaints, the respective complainants have filed their affidavits and also produced various documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, we have to consider, whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that they are entitled to the reliefs?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above point is affirmative, for the following reasons:<br /> REASONS<br /> 7. To substantiate the fact that, the respective complainants have kept the amount in F.D. with the opposite party alleged in the complaint, the respective complainants have filed their affidavits and also, produced copy of the F.D. receipts. The opposite party has remained exparte. Considering the evidence on record, we have no reasons at all to dis-believe the case put forth by the complainants.<br /> <br /> 8. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Commission in the rulings reported in I (1994) CPJ 377, III (2002) CPJ 243, I (1999) CPJ 2, III (2006) CPJ 390, II (2006) CPJ 390 and 2010 (2) CPR 388, we are of the opinion that, non-payment or refund of the F.D. amount by the opposite party to the depositors/complainants, amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 9. Though, the opposite party is set exparte and not denied or disputed the claim of the complainants, we have to further consider, whether pre-mature withdrawal of the F.D. is permissible? It is submitted for the complainants that, with prior notice, it is permissible. It is stated that, complainants had sent notice to the opposite party, calling upon to refund the F.D. amount. We take judicial notice that, against the opposite party Finance Corporation, several cases are filed and in some cases, the Rules and Regulations governing deposits of the opposite party finance Firm was produced and one of the rule is to the effect that, deposits cannot be withdrawn before the maturity date except special circumstances and if allowed, it will be 2% less than the rate agreed for the period during, which the deposit was held. Hence, as per the rule of the opposite party itself, pre-mature withdrawal is permissible. Of course, special circumstances for the said purpose, needs to be made out. In the cases on hand, it is submitted for the complainants that, as agreed, from time to time, opposite party has not paid the interest and from the date noted below, opposite party has stopped payment of interest. Considering this amongst other circumstances, it is just and necessary to permit the complainants for pre-mature withdrawal subject to reduction of 2% interest. The Hon’ble National Commission in a ruling reported in II (2006) CPJ 380 has held that, pre-mature withdrawal of F.D. is permissible. Further, we may take notice that, other banks including nationalized banks also permit pre-mature withdrawal and as per the Rules or terms and conditions, interest rate will be reduced. In the cases on hand also, in case of pre-mature withdrawal, opposite party has agreed to refund the amount subject to 2% reduction in interest.<br /> 10. Considering the facts, material on record and the discussion made here before, we pass the following order:<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The Complaints are partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount shown in Col.No.5 of the Table to the respective complainants with interest at the rate shown in Col.No.8 from the date shown in Col.No.9, within a month from the date of the order, in cases of matured F.D. receipts, the dates shown in Col.No.6, and in respect of pre-mature cases, 2% interest less than the rate shown in Col.No.8. <br /> Sl. No. Complaint No. Rec. No. Receipt Date Deposit Amount Date of Mat. Period of Dep. Rate <br /> of int. Int. paid upto the date<br /> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9<br /> 1. CC 601/10 606 30.04.07 25,000/- 30.04.10 3 years 12% pa 01.03.10<br /> 2. CC 602/10 266 08.02.10 10,000/- 08.02.11 1 year 12% pa 01.02.10<br /> 3. CC 603/10 587 29.07.09 32,000/- 29.07.10 1 year 12% pa 01.03.10<br /> 265 24.02.10 51,000/- 24.02.11 1 year 12% pa 01.03.10<br /> 4. CC 604/10 242 29.07.08 20,000/- 29.07.10 2 years 12% pa 01.01.10<br /> 244 30.07.08 20,000/- 30.07.10 2 years 12% pa 01.01.10<br /> 249 31.07.08 20,000/- 31.07.10 2 years 12% pa 01.01.10<br /> 275 01.08.08 10,000/- 01.08.10 2 years 12% pa 01.01.10<br /> 505 06.10.08 20,000/- 06.10.10 2 years 12% pa 01.01.10<br /> 808 08.10.09 10,000/- 08.10.10 1 year 12% pa 01.01.10<br /> 5. CC 605/10 163 08.07.08 45,000/- 08.07.09 1 year 12% pa 01.04.10<br /> 167 09.07.08 45,000/- 09.07.09 1 year 12% pa 01.04.10<br /> 170 10.07.08 10,000/- 10.07.09 1 year 12% pa 01.04.10<br /> <br /> 3. Further, opposite party shall pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants.<br /> 4. The original order shall be kept in CC 601/2010 and the copy in CC 602 to 605/2010 cases.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 20th August 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />