BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 220/2006 Filed on 03.08.2006

Dated : 15.05.2009

Complainant:

T.V. Lekshmi Kanthan., T.C 42/1440(15), Ganesh Nivas, Sreevaraha Nagar, Vallakkadavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. M/s LLOYDS Finance Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Sanidhya Complex, Ashramroad, Ahamedabad-380 009.

 

1. Bajaj Capital, Branch Office, Attukal Complex Building, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. R.S. Mohanan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 04.04.2009, the Forum on 15.05.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with the 1^st opposite party Lloyds Finance Ltd. On 22.06.1996 under a scheme “Money Multiplier (C)” which was canvassed by and routed through the 2^nd opposite party, Bajaj Capital, that the said deposit was for a period of 36 months and the maturity date was 22.06.1999 and the deposit No. is T 7031/1, that the complainant surrendered the said deposit receipt duly discharged for the payment of the deposit amount with interest on 13.01.2000 itself. 1^st opposite party issued various schedules alleging to be rescheduled again and again by the Company Law Board and at last one cheque for Rs. 6000/- was issued by the opposite party. The balance amount and interest not paid till date even though the prescribed date as per the payment schedule was over. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9639/- with 18% interest from 01.07.1996 along with Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs.

The 1^st opposite party filed version contending that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has appointed a Special Committee to look after the management of the affairs of the 1^st opposite party and by its order dated 12.04.2004 has stayed all civil cases and criminal proceedings against the 1^st opposite party, that Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has approved a scheme of repayment for depositors and that the Hon'ble National Commission by its order dated 03.04.2007 in Revision Petition No. 1768/00 and Revision Petition No. 1769/00 has directed the state commissions and District Forum not to proceed against disputes against the 1^st opposite party M/s Lloyds Finace Ltd.

2^nd opposite party filed version contending that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party guaranteeing the repayment of F.D. Receipt and 2^nd opposite party acted as a broker only to transmit the application of the complainant to 1^st opposite party who accepted the said deposit and issued F.D Receipt to the complainant and that the claim of the complainant arises only against 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party has nothing to do with it. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 9,639/- with interest at 18%?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Other reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the 2^nd opposite party. Opposite parties did not file affidavit in support of the version, but furnished 7 documents along with version.

Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with the 1^st opposite party Lloyds Finance Ltd., on 22.06.1996 under a scheme “Money Multiplier (C)” which was canvassed by and routed through the 2^nd opposite party, Bajaj Capital, that the said deposit was for a period of 36 months and the maturity date was 22.06.1999. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Deposit Receipt dated 01.07.1996. As per Ext. P1 deposit receipt, the deposit No. is T 7031/1, deposit amount is Rs. 10,000/-, period is for 36 months, rate of interest per annum is 15%, deposit date is 22.06.1996, maturity date is 22.06.1999, deposit scheme is “Money Multiplier (C)” and maturity value is Rs. 15,639/-. It has also been the case of the complainant that though complainant surrendered the said deposit receipt duly discharged, for the payment of the deposit amount with interest, 1^st opposite party failed to refund the whole amount with interest as agreed, instead of repeated correspondences made by the complainant, that at last 1^st opposite party issued various schedules by Exts. P2 to P4 alleging to rescheduled again and again by the company Law Board along with one cheque for Rs. 6,000/-, that the balance amount and interest as agreed not paid till date, though the prescribed date as per the payment schedule stated in Exts. P2 to P4 is over. Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter dated 06.09.2005 addressed to 1^st opposite party by the complainant. Ext. P6 is the copy of advocate notice dated 06.06.2006. Ext. P7 is the copy postal receipt and Ext. P8 is the copy of acknowledgement card. In the version, it has been contended by the 1^st opposite party that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has appointed a special committee to look after the management of the affairs of the 1^st opposite party and by its order dated 12.04.2004 has stayed all civil cases and criminal proceedings against the company, that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has approached a scheme of repayment for depositors and that Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by its order dated 03.04.2007 in Revision Petition No. 1768 of 2000 and Revision Petition No. 1769 of 2000 has directed State Commissions and District Forums not to proceed against disputes against M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. 1^st opposite party has furnished the order dated 03.04.2007 of the Hon'ble National Commission. In the said order it is seen stated by the Hon'ble National Commission that “for pending matters, the Consumer Fora would pass appropriate orders crystallizing the amount payable by the company, but no order for recovery shall be passed by the consumer Fora. It would be open to the complainant to inform the committee with regard to the amount payable by the company to the complainant on the basis of the orders which may be passed by the Consumer Fora”. It has been contended by the 2^nd opposite party in its version that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party guaranteeing the repayment of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, that 2^nd opposite party acted as a broker only to transmit the application of the complainant to 1^st opposite party, who accepted the said deposit and issued F.D Receipt to the complainant, that the claim of the complainant arises only against the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party has nothing to do with it. There is no material on record showing that the said deposit was canvassed by and routed through the 2^nd opposite party and that 2^nd opposite party had guaranteed the repayment of the fixed deposit to the complainant. In the absence of any cogent and clinching evidence against 2^nd opposite party, complainant cannot say that there was deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Admittedly, 1^st complainant received a sum of Rs. 6000/- from the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party did not furnish any material showing that 1^st opposite party had remitted the balance amount and interest for the principal amount as per Ext. P1 F.D. Receipt to the complainant. Non-payment of the balance amount of Rs. 9,639/- and agreed interest for the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- from 22.06.1996 to 22.06.1999 would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Deficiency in service proved. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 9,639/- with interest thereon.

In the result, complaint is allowed. 1^st opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 9,639/- with interest at 15% from 01.07.1996 to 22.06.1999. 1^st opposite party shall also pay interest at the rate of 12% for Rs. 9,639/- from 23.06.1999 till realisation. 1^st opposite party shall pay the said amounts within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which 1^st opposite party shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15^th May 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 220/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Lekshmi Kanthan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Deposit Receipt No. T 7031/1 dated 01.07.1996.

P2 - Photocopy of letter dated 16.06.1999 issued to the complainant.

P3 - Photocopy of letter dated 15.06.2000 issued to the complainant.

P4 - Photocopy of letter dated 01.01.2001 issued to the complainant.

P5 - Photocopy of letter dated 06.09.2005 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.

P6 - Copy of advocate notice dated 06.06.2006 issued to the opposite party.

P7 - Photocopy of postal receipt No. 629.

P8 - Photocopy of acknowledgement card.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT