F.A.No.1671/2008  against C.D.No.243/2003,   Dist. Forum,  Karimnagar.

Between:

Mothe  Shyamala ,

W/o.Kishtaiah, aged about 55 years,

Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.6-5-142,

Brahmanwadi, Jagitial.                                 …  Appellant/

                                                                    Complainant

          And

1.M/s. Godavari Valley Industrial Development Trust,

   H.No.6-3-88, Jagtial, rep. by its settler.

2. Kasuganti  Sudhakar Rao, S/o.Laxminarasimha Rao,

    Aged about 57 years, Occ:Business,

    Settler and   Trustee of the

    M/s. Godavari Valley Industrial Development Trust,

    Jagitial, R/o.H.no.7-1-122, Old Bus stand, Jagitial.

3. Palle (P) Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Posetti,

     Aged about 51  years, Occ:Business/E.O.cum Trustee of  

    M/s. G.V.I.D.Trust,    R/o.H.No.7-5-137, Jagitial.

4. Regunda Satyanarayana, S/o.Bhoomaiah,

    Aged 56 years, Occ:Business, Trustee of

    M/s. G.V.I.D. Trust, R/o.H.No.6-4-201,

    Pochammawada, Jagitial.                         …  Respondents/

                                                                     Opp.parties  

Counsel for the Appellant       :  M/s. P.Rajasripathi Rao      

Counsel for the Respondent   :              -       

CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

THURSDAY, THE  TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order : (Per  Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

****

        Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.243/2003  on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar , the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant’s husband  deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- vide  F.D.No.705  on 30.11.1994, the maturity value being Rs.30,000/-  payable on 30.11.2002.  On 18.4.2002   the complainant’s husband i.e.  the depositor died  and the complainant being  the wife and nominee approached opposite parties 2 to 4  and submitted all the claim papers for refund of the maturity amount. Inspite of several requests the opposite parties did not refund the maturity amount.  Vexed with their attitude, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties  to refund the fixed deposit maturity amount   of Rs.30,000/-   with interest from the  date of  maturity i.e. 30.11.2002  till the date of  realization  of amount @ 18% p.a.   together with damages, compensation and costs.

        Opposite party no.2  filed counter admitting the deposits  in which the complainant is the nominee and contended  that the  Opposite party no.1  is the  Trust   registered under Trust Act and  that the complainant’s husband deposited  one fixed deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the complainant’s name and  other deposits   of  Rs.10,000/-  in his daughter’s name and the opposite parties  on humanitarian  grounds paid Rs.39,000/-  with interest  covered under 3 fixed deposits.  The opp.party further submits that  the Depositor submitted that the fixed deposit receipts were not traced  and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.

        Opp.party no.1 filed memo  adopting  the counter of opp.party no.2.

        Opp.party no.3 filed counter  stating that  said Kistaiah   approached the opp.parties on behalf of   the complainant herein and requested for payment of amounts covered under the fixed deposit  receipts  bearing nos.705, 712 and 713 dt.30.11.94, 2.1.95  and 2.1.95  and due to acquaintance  of said Kistaiah  they paid an amount of Rs.39,000/-  covered under the   said  deposits  and the said Kistaiah also executed voucher  bearing no.120/8  for the said amount.

         Opp.party  no.4 also filed counter stating that the complainant’s husband  has voluntarily  deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/-  but the said complainant  never approached opposite party no.4  at any time for demanding the maturity amount. 

         The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 and B1 to B6  allowed the complaint  directing the opposite parties to pay the  fixed deposit amount  with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint together with costs of Rs.500/- .

        Aggrieved  by the said order,  the complainant preferred this appeal.

        The facts not in dispute are that the complainant’s husband vide deposit receipt no.705 as evidenced under Ex.A1 dt. 30.11.94    had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/-, the maturity value being Rs.30,000/- as on 30.11.2002 .  It is an admitted fact that M.Kistaiah died on 18.4.2002 as evidenced under Ex.A2.  The District Forum taking into consideration the pleadings put forward  and the affidavits  and the material on record allowed the complaint  awarding interest at 9%  but only on the fixed deposit amount but not on the maturity amount.  The   learned counsel for the appellant  contended that the District Forum ought to have ordered  for refund of the maturity amount and interest at 9% thereon . 

        A brief perusal of Ex.A1  clearly evidences that the principal amount  is Rs.10,000/-  while the maturity amount is Rs.30,000/-  and therefore we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and we modify the order of the   District Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the maturity amount of Rs.30,000/-  with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint till the date of realization  and we confirm the costs of Rs.500/- awarded by the District Forum.    It is pertinent   to note that the opp.parties  did not prefer any appeal .

        In the result this appeal is allowed in part and order of the District Forum is modified directing the opposite parties  to pay to the complainant  the maturity amount of Rs.30,000/-  with interest at 9%  p.a. from the date  of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.  Order of the District Forum  with regard to  awarding  costs of Rs.500/-   is confirmed.   Time for compliance four weeks.       

                                                          Sd./PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd./MEMBER

                                                                                                                DT. 28.10.2010