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.121/2010
Between:
1. S.Venkateswara Guptha
S/o Late S.A.Narayanappa Setty
2. Smt.S.Padmaja
W/o S.Venkateswara Guptha
Both are residing at D.No.11-1-178/1
II Cross, Aravindanagar
Anantapur – 515 001. … 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.1,09,880/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainants 1 & 2 are husband and wife 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.40,000/- on 01-09-2008 with the 1st opposite party as Fixed Deposit. In turn, the 2nd opposite party has issued Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 for Rs.40,000/- in favour of the complainants. The period of deposit is for 24 months, rate of interest is 12%, the date of maturity is 01-09-2010 and the interest will be payable quarterly on the said F.D. amount. The 2nd complainant alongwith 1st complainant have jointly deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 15-03-2009 with the 1st opposite party. In turn, the 2nd opposite party has issued Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 for Rs.40,000/- in favour of the complainants. The period of deposit is for 24 months, rate of interest is 12%, date of maturity is 15-03-2011 and the interest will be payable quarterly on the said F.D. amount. After depositing the above said F.D.Rs., the opposite parties 1 & 2 have paid quarterly interest on the said F.D.Rs., to the complainants by way of cheques up-to 31-03-2010. Thereafter, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not pay quarterly interest on the said F.D.Rs., Since F.D.R. bearing No.89/348 dt.01-09-2008 for Rs.40,000/- was matured on 01-09-2010 the complainants requested the 2nd opposite party to pay the matured amount with up to-date interest, but in vain. As the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not pay the interest on F.D.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 for Rs.40,000/- from 01-04-2010, the complainants are not interested to keep the said amount with the opposite parties 1 & 2. The complainants wrote a letter dt.25-06-2010to the 2nd opposite party with a request to send quarterly interest from 01-04-2010 by way of cheques and if they fail to pay the quarterly interest cancel the F.D.Rs., and pay the amounts with up-to date interest. In response to the above letter, the 2nd opposite party has sent a letter dt.28-06-2010 to the complainants stating financial position of the company and requested the complainants to extend their co-operation. Again the complainants wrote another letter dt.01-09-2010 to the opposite parties 1 & 2 requesting them to pay the matured amount with up-to-date interest in respect of F.D.R.No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 and premature amount with up-to-date interest in respect of F.D.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009, but there is no response from the opposite parties 1 & 2 to the said letter. Hence, the complainants suffered lot of mental agony and thus there is clear negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in paying the F.D.R. amounts with up-to-date interest. Hence, the complainants having no other go have filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint with costs.
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.DRs., in favour of the complainants and also the payment of interest as mentioned in the complaint. It is contended that the complainants have no right to demand to encash F.D. Bonds unless and until the maturity period is completed. As the maturity period is only on 15-03-2011 the question of payment under the F.D.R. does not arise and the complaint is pre-mature one. So far the F.D.R.No.89/348 is concerned after completion of maturity period this opposite party demanded the complainants to submit the original F.D.R. Bond to forward and to encash the same, but the complainants bluntly refused for the same. Hence, this opposite party has no chance to forward the same to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party also made enquiries in this regard and informed the very same matter to the complainants. As the complainants have not complied obligations, this opposite party not made any efforts. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 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 in respect of 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 A8 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.40,000/- on 01-09-2008 and another sum of Rs.40,000/- on 15-03-2009 with the 1st opposite party as Fixed Deposit at Anantapur. In turn, the 2nd opposite party issued F.D.R.No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 and F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009. 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. 89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 and F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 and also did not deny with regard to payment of interest on the said F.D.Rs., up-to 31-03-2010 by way of cheques and thereafter they did not pay quarterly interest on the above said F.D.Rs.,
11. It is an admitted fact that the F.D.R.No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 is for Rs.40,000/-, the maturity date is 01-09-2010 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not paid interest from 01-04-2010 till end of 30-08-2010 on the said F.D.R. in spite of requests made by the complainants to the 2nd opposite party to pay the interest amount and the matured amount. It is also an admitted fact that the F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 is for Rs.40,000/-, the maturity date is 15-03-2011 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not paid interest from 01-04-2010 on the said F.D.Rs. in spite of requests made by the complainants to the 2nd opposite party to pay the interest amount and to close the said F.D.R and to pay the F.D.R. amount.
12. The complainants have addressed letters under Exs.A3 and A7 to the opposite parties requesting them to pay F.D.R. amounts but the 2nd opposite party under Ex.B5 has given reply 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 said F.D.Rs. amounts and also the interest accrued on the said F.D.Rs. 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 interest and also matured amount in respect of F.D.R.No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 from 01-04-2010 till the date of payment and interest in respect of F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 from 01-04-2010 and also failed to close the said FDR as requested by the complainants. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.40,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount from 01-04-2010 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.40,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 with interest @12% p.a. from 01-04-2010 till the date of payment. Since the opposite parties failed to pay the interest from 01-04-2010 as per the conditions laid down in Ex.B1 in respect of the above said F.D.Rs. and also maturity amount in respect of F.D.R No.89/3489 dt. 01-09-2008 and failed to close the F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 as requested by the complainants 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.40,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount from 01-04-2010 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.40,000/- in respect of F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 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.89/3489 dt.01-09-2008 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of
the 1st complainant for Rs.40,000/-.
Ex.A2 - Original F.D.R.No.96/3666 dt.15-03-2009 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of
the 2nd complainant for Rs.40,000/-.
Ex.A3 – Photo copy of letter dt.25-06-2010 sent by the 1st complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Courier Receipt dt.25-06-2010 issued by DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Anantapur.
Ex.A5 - Photo copy of letter dt.28-06-2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party to all the
depositors.
Ex.A6 - Courier Receipt dt..01-09-2010 issued by DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Anantapur.
Ex.A7 - Photo copy of letter dt.01-09-2010 sent by the 1st complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A8 - Statement showing the details of cheques issued in favour of the 1st complainant
issued by the 1st opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 - Original application form for Fixed/Cumulative/Recurring Deposits Dt.26-08-208
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
