BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 1160 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.8 OF 2005 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM WARANGAL
Between
1. B.Anjaneyulu S/o Narasimhaswamy
aged about 43 years, Occ: Employee
2. B.Archana W/o Anjaneyulu
aged about 26 yrs, Occ: Household
3. Berukuri Sai Kumar s/o Anjaneyulu
aged about 9 yrs, Occ: Student (Minor)
rep. by its natural guardian his father B.Anjaneyulu
4. B.Sai Teja S/o Anjaneyulu
aged about 8 yrs, Occ: Student
rep. by his natural guardian B.Anjaneyulu
All are R/o H.No.1-11-41, Weavers Colony
Jangaon, Warangal District
Appellants/complainants
A N D
1. Kovela Permanent Fund Ltd., regd.Off: H.No.2-5-33
Nehru Park, Jangaon rep. by its M.D.Sri J.Ravinder
S/o Pentaiah, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business
H.No.1-7-72, Girnigadda, Jangaon, Warangal Dist.
2. J.Ravinder S/o Pentaiah, aged about 39 years,
Occ: Business H.No.1-7-72, Girnigada, Jangaon, Warangal
3. D.Venkata Srinivasa Rao S/o Saidulu aged about 54 yrs
Occ: Business, H.No.5-11-396, Naim Nagar,
Hanumakonda, Warangal District
4. T.Omkar S/o Chantaiah, aged about 54 yrs, Occ: Business
H.No.5-11-396, Naim Nagar, Hanumakonda, Warangal Dist.
5. R.Narasimharao, S/o Nagaraju Occ: Business
H.No.1-7-182, Girnigadda, Jangaon, Warangal District
6. U.Ramesh S/o Viswanatham, Occ: Business
R/o Ganugapahad Village & Post, Jangaon Mandal Warangal Dist.
7. B.Ashok S/o Narasaiah, Occ: Business R/o Mandalgudem V&P
Raghunathapalli Mandal, Warangal Dist.
8. B.Chandrasekhar S/o Krishnamurthy, Occ:Business
R/o H.No.1-9-2, Bank Street, Jangaon, Warangal District
9. K.Bhaskar S/o Kammari Balaiah, Occ: Business
R/o Siddenki Village & Post, Jangaon Mandal, Warangal Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 Sri D.Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 to 9 Party in person
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THRUSDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is preferred against the order of the District Forum, Warangal in C.D.No.8 of 2005.
The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the first complainant is the husband of second complainant and complainants no.3 and 4 are the minor children of complainants no.1 and 2. The first complainant deposited dRs.2,000/- on 31.1.1996 and Rs.2,000/- on 29.2.1996 with the opposite parties. The opposite parties agreed to pay double the value of the amount after the maturity period of five years. The second complainant also deposited Rs.4,000/-, the third complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- and the fourth complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the opposite parties. In all they have deposited a total sum of Rs.46,000/- on the date of maturity of the bonds. The complainant after the maturity period demanded the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of the bonds but they failed to pay the same even after issuance of legal notice dated 24.11.2003. The complainants claimed maturity amount of Rs.46,000/- with interest and costs.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 resisted the claim by contending that the complainants deposited the amounts when amount were mobilized by one Banala Venkateshwarlu who also executed an agreement with the opposite parties agreeing to pay the maturity value of the bonds to the complainants and the complainants have to claim the amount from the said person. The complaint filed by the complainants is barred by limitation as the bonds have issued in the year 1996 and the maturity period was in the year 2001 and the complaint filed after lapse of two years from the date of maturity of the bond.
The oppose parties no.3 and 4 filed counter contending that they had resigned as Directors long back and the said fact was known to the complainants. The complaint filed by the complainants is barred by limitation. The complaint filed against opposite party no.5 is dismissed on 12.9.2005 for not taking steps against him.
Opposite parties no.6 to 9 remained exparte.
The complainants have filed his affidavit and documents ExA1 to A27. On behalf of the opposite parties, opposite parties no.1, 3 and 4 filed their affidavits and documents Exs.B1 to B4.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint opining that the claim made by the complainants is barred by limitation.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is vitiated by the misappreciation of the fact or law?
There is no denying the fact that the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.23,000/- on various dates ranging from 31.1.1996 till 29.2.1996. In fact Exs.A15 to A20 had been issued on 31.1.1996 whereas the other deposit bonds were issued on 29.2.1996. The maturity date as mentioned in the deposit bonds that were issued on 31.1.1996 is 31.1.2001 whereas the maturity date for those deposit bonds which were issued on 29.2.1996 is 29.2.2001. The defence of the opposite parties is that the deposits were made through one Banala Venkeshwarlu and B.Narasimhaswamy with the opposite party no.1 firm with the understanding that any obligation in regard to the deposit was with Venkateswarlu and Narasimhaswamy only and the opposite party no.1 informed the obligation of the Venkateswarlu and Narasimhaswamy in discharge of the payments due to the complainant in view of the internal understanding between them. Further it was contention of the opposite parties that Banala Venkateswarlu executed a document in favour of the opposite party no.1 whereby the opposite party no.1 was discharged from the liability of payment of any amount to the complainants. It is also the contention of the opposite parties that the claim of the complainants was barred by limitation.
The learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 24.11.2003 when they demanded the opposite parties to pay the amount on maturity covered under the fixed deposit receipts. As the complaint was filed on 16.9.2004, he contended that the claim was within the period of limitation.
The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was not filed within the period of limitation. Sec.24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act provides for two years as the period within which the complainant has to file his complaint before the District Forum. The period of two years has to be reckoned from the date of cause of action. We may quote the Section which reads as under:
24A. Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
The date of cause of action in the case of deposit accrues from the date of demand. The complainants got issued legal notice dated 24.11.2003 with a demand for payment of the maturity amount. Admittedly the complaint was filed on 16.9.2004. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the decision of the Kerala State Commission reported in (2001) 2 CPR, 261 that the date of cause of action in the case of deposit is from the date of demand, is not applicable for the reason that in the case cited, there was no mention of maturity date in the fixed deposit receipts while the FDRs filed in the instant case contain specific date of maturity. The District Forum had not properly interpreted the ratio laid down by the Kerala State Commission. A deposit is deposit irrespective of the date of maturity whether mentioned in the fixed deposit receipt . The mere failure of not mentioning the date of maturity in the fixed deposit receipts would not change its nature or character of the deposit. The deposit once accepted in its true spirit has to be interpreted but not otherwise.
The Kerala State Commission has referred to the decision of M/s Gold Finance Thrisuur and others v. Mrs.Susy Zacharia wherein it was held that the cause of action in case of deposit would arise only from the date of demand.
Apart from the legal notice that was issued on 24.11.2003 by the complainants, the contention of the complainants in regard to the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 1.1.2003 has to be taken into consideration while computing the period of limitation for filing the complaint. The complainant no.1 in his affidavit has stated “ I submit that the Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad has also directed the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount to its members by notification dated 1.1.2003 which was published in Enadu daily newspaper dated 3.1.2003”. (emphasis supplied)
The casue of action is a bundle of facts for the complalinants to prove in order succeed his claim. Therefore, an instance which does not have a material binding on the facts of the case by itself cannot be considered as the cause of action for the complainant to prove his complaint. The date of demand as was made by getting issued legal notice as also the notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India tgether constitutes cause of action for filing complaint. The legal notice and the notification of the RBI are pertaining to the year 2003 and the complaint was filed in the year 2004. As such we are inclined to hold the contention of the complainant that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed by Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The contention of the opposite parites that there was internal understanding between Venkatswarly and Narasimha swamy in pursuance of which Venkateswarly had executed a document whereby he had undertaken to discharge payment under the fixed deposit receipts to the complainants cannot be accepted for the simple reason that either Venkateswarly or Narasimha swamy have not deposited the amount covered under fixed deposit receipts with the opposite party no.1 company. The complainants had deposited the amount of Rs.23,000/- with the opposite party no.1 firm of which the opposite parties no.2 to 9 are the directors and incharge of its day to day affairs. The opposite party no.1 had issued the fixed deposit bonds promising attractive rate of interest in favour of the complainant, on the date of maturity mentioned therein. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 contended that they had no concern whatsoever with the opposite party no.1 company. The extract of Form no.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies Hyderabad shows that the opposite parties no.3 and 4 are the Directors of the opposite party no.1 company. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 have not filed any documents to show that they had any concern with the opposite party no.1 company. In the circumstances, the liability of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is on par with the other opposite parties in regard to the payment of the amount due from the opposite party no.1 company to the complainants.
In some fixed deposit receipts the name of B.Narasimha Swamy is mentioned as the nominee, any act of the nominee in respect of the deposit amount during the life of the depositor would not bind the depositor in any manner and the finance company which issued the FDR cannot escape its liability seeking the alleged transaction with the nominee during the life time of the depositor. Therefore, any contention that Narasimhaswamy had undertaken to discharge the payment under the FDRs due to the complainants is not tenable nor acceptable.
The opposite party no.1 had invited the deposits from the complainants promising them that it would pay double the amount deposited by them. With the offer extended by the opposite party no.1, the compalinatns had deposited their respective amounts with the opposite party no.1 company which had issued the fixed deposit receipt assuring them that the amount as promised would be paid to them on the date of maturity mentioned therein. An offer to pay the deposit amount with attractive rate of interest after the date of maturity and failure to pay the same by the opposite party no.1 company to the complainants constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well on the part of the opposite parties no.1 to 9. Hence, the opposite parties no.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 are liable to pay the amount on maturity Rs.46,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by the District Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties no.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 to pay Rs.46,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., 16.9.2004 till payment and costs of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.24.06.2010
KMK*
