DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President
Smt.S.Lalitha, Member, M.A., M.L.,
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Tuesday, the 14th day of December, 2010
C.C.NO.122/2010
Between:
1. Smt.R.Saraswathy
W/o R.Ramanatha Setty
2. R.Ramanatha Setty
S/o Late R.Venkatappa
Both are residing at D.No.2-407
Sri Nivas, 3rd Road, 4th Cross
Anantapur. … Complainants.
Vs.
1. M/s Mukunda Industrial Finance Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager
Vishnu Priya Complex, Upstairs
S.B.I. (A.D.B.Bank), Near Tower Clock
Subash Road
Anantapur -515 001.
2. M/s Mukunda Industrial Finance Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director
Regd. Office, H.B.R. Complex, 328/12
14th Cross, II Block, Jayanagar
Bangalore – 560 011. … Opposite parties.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri E.Sainath and Sri V.Ravisankar Reddy, advocates for the complainants and Sri N.R.K.Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, advocates for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,765/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainants 1 & 2 are wife and husband and they are permanent residents of Anantapur Town. The 1st opposite party is the Branch Office situated at Anantapur and the 2nd opposite party is the Registered Office situated at Bangalore. The 1st complainant along with 2nd complainant have jointly deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 30-11-2007 with the 1st opposite party as Fixed Deposit. In turn, the 2nd opposite party has issued Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 for Rs.45,000/- in favour of the complainants. The period of deposit is for 24 months, rate of interest is 11%, the date of maturity is 30-11-2009 and the interest will be payable monthly on the said F.D. amount. Original F.D.R. for Rs.45,000/- was sent to the 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party on 01-12-2009 for effective payment. The 1st complainant along with 2nd complainant have jointly deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 29-03-2008 with the 1st opposite party. In turn, the 2nd opposite party has issued Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the complainants. The period of deposit is for 24 months, rate of interest is 12%, date of maturity is 29-03-2010 and the interest will be payable monthly on the said F.D. amount. After depositing the F.D.Rs., the opposite parties 1 & 2 have paid monthly interest on the F.D.Rs., to the complainants by way of cheques up-to 30-11-2009 and 29-03-2010 respectively. Thereafter, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not pay monthly interest on the F.D.Rs., Since both the F.D.Rs. matured on 30-11-2009 and 29-03-2010 respectively, the 1st opposite party wrote letter dt.01-12-2009 to the 2nd opposite party enclosing original F.D.R.No.76/3141dt.30-11-2007 to pay the amount with up-to-date interest, but in vain. The complainants personally approached the 1st opposite party several times and demanded them to pay the matured amounts with up to-date interest. The 1st opposite party gave a letter dt.28-06-2010 stating the financial status of the company. Since the opposite parties have not paid the maturity amounts to the complainants, the complainants suffered lot of mental agony and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainants having no other go filed this complaint direct them to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter and admitted with regard to deposit of the amounts with the opposite parties under F.D.Rs. and issuing F.D.Rs., in favour of the complainants and also the payment of interest as mentioned in the complaint. It is contended that though the complainants have mentioned in the complainant that they have not received up-to-date interests, the interest was again calculated in para 8 of the complaint. Therefore, the opposite party refused to pay the interest twice for the very same period. After going through the contents of the terms and conditions of the deposit applications forms only the complainants have entered into the F.D.Rs., with this opposite parties. In condition No.38 of the terms and conditions it is clearly mentioned that deposits are accepted subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. Thus it is very clear that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether this Form has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2? If so whether the complainants are entitled for the amount as claimed in the complaint from the opposite parties 1 & 2?
3. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 document. The 2nd opposite party has not filed evidence on affidavit and no documents have been marked on his behalf.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1:– The counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter in view of condition No.38 of Ex.B1. Therefore, the complainant filed by the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed on that ground.
9. The evidence on affidavit of the 1st complainant goes to prove the fact that himself and his wife have jointly deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 30-11-2007 and another sum of Rs.50,000/- on 29-03-2008 with the 1st opposite party as Fixed Deposit at Anantapur. In turn, the 2nd opposite party issued F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 and F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008. The said fact was not denied by the opposite parties 1 & 2. Thus it clearly goes to prove the fact that the cause of action arose at Anantapur only. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable before this Forum. Therefore, the said contention of the counsel for the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint in view of condition No.38 of the terms and conditions contained in Ex.B1 that the deposits are accepted subject to Bangalore Jurisdiction and that the complainants have to seek their remedy at Bangalore only can not be accepted. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint filed by the complainants is maintainable before this Forum. Accordingly, this point is answered.
10. POINT NO.2:- The 1st opposite party in his evidence on affidavit has not denied with regard to the fact of deposit of amounts by the complainants 1 & 2 under F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 and F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 and also did not deny with regard to payment of interest on the said F.D.Rs. up-to 30-11-2009 and 29-03-2010 by way of cheques and thereafter they did not pay the said F.D.Rs.amounts
11. It is an admitted fact that the F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 is for Rs.45,000/-, the maturity date is 30-11-2009 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not paid the F.D.R amount on its maturity date in spite of requests made by the complainants to the 2nd opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that the F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 is for Rs.50,000/-, the maturity date is 29-03-2010 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 nave not paid the F.D.R. amount on its maturity date in spite of requests made by the complainants to the 2nd opposite party.
12. The 2nd opposite party under Ex.A4 has sent letter to all the depositors stating that “Due to various reasons, a large number of NBFCs has closed down in the country but this company has been withstanding all such problems, because of your support and its inbuilt strength. Now the opposite party has been trying to find out a solution to the present difficulties by initiating discussions/negotiations with investors across the country. The company is in an advanced stage of finalization of some of the deals. It is our earnest request to all of you to bear with us for a little more time and extend your co-operation for a successful conclusion of the discussions, which are in progress. The top management assures you keeping the interest of its depositors as top-most priority and look forward for servicing everybody”. Thus, in view of the said reply given by the 2nd opposite party, it clearly goes to prove the fact that the opposite parties are not interested in repayment of the F.D.R. amounts as per their commitment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
13. Therefore, on considering the said facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 for not paying the F.D.R. amount of Rs.45,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 on its maturity date 30-11-2009 and also for not paying the F.D.R amount 50,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 on its maturity date 29-03-2010. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.45000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 with interest @ 11% p.a. on the said amount from 01-12-2009 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.50,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 with interest @12% p.a. from 01-04-2010 till the date of payment. Since the opposite parties failed to pay the maturity amount as per the conditions laid down in Ex.B1 in respect of the above said FDRs as a result, the complainants were put to mental agony. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony. Accordingly this point is answered.
14. POINT NO.3; - In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.45,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 with interest @ 11% p.a. on the said amount from 01-12-2009 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.50,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 with interest @12% p.a. from 01-04-2010 till the date of payment and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with costs of Rs.3,000/-. The said amount shall be payable by the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the complainants within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 14th day of December, 2010.
.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Original F.D.R.No.76/3141 dt.30-11-2007 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of
the 1st complainant for Rs.45,000/-.
Ex.A2 - Original F.D.R.No.82/3328 dt.29-03-2008 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of
the 2nd complainant for Rs.50,000/-.
Ex.A3 – Photo copy of letter dt.01-12-2009 sent by the complainants to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of letter dt.28-06-2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party to all the
depositors.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 - Original application form for Fixed/Cumulative/Recurring Deposits Dt.29-03-2007
submitted by the complainants to the opposite parties.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
