A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD.
FA 123/2006 against C.C. 270/2004, Dist. Forum, Guntur.
Between:
Bandlamudi Sivaparvathi
D/o. Venkayya
4th Line, Bharatpet
Guntur. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
Sanghi Plantations Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Girish Sanghi
Corporate Office at
4-3-352, Bank Street
Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. Gouri Shankara Rao
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. M.S.N. Prasad.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant in not allowing the entire claim made by her. .
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that adverting to the scheme “The Unique Teak Offer” issued by the respondent company offering Rs. 50,000/- in 20 years for every teak plant on payment of Rs. 1,000/-, trusting the Sanghi group she subscribed for two trees in the year 1992, paid Rs. 2,000/- and obtained acknowledgement. Later on 7.6.2001 under Ex. A6, it informed that the trees had gained an average height of 1100 -1200 cms and 65-70 cms at the end of 2000 and suggested her that she was at liberty to apply for withdrawal from the scheme in which
event the payment made by her shall be refunded to her. While so it has sent a letter on 13.2.2004 evidenced under Ex. A8 extending the maturity period from 2012 to 2042 “for the reasons beyond control of the company” and for those people who cannot wait for long they could opt for refund and that majority of the tree holders have opted for refund of the amount. This was made with a malafide intention by extending the maturity period altogether for 50 years. Since she was not willing to keep the membership any longer, she claimed Rs. 30,000/- for each of the tree at pro-rata basis with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of claim till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony.
3) The respondent resisted the case. It alleged that it looks as though the complainant was interested for settlement at Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. In that case it would amount to a suit for damages and the complaint was not maintainable. At the time when certificate was issued acknowledging payment of Rs. 2,000/- towards teak tree plantations, it was contemplated that by the end of 20 years by 2012, the teak trees would grow to the expected maturity and would yield expected income. Since it was subject to vagaries of nature and the plantation growth has been affected because of fluctuation of nature in spite of taking all the care, Technical advise was given, that it should be extended to 30 more years. Accordingly the unit holders have been offered the option to continue in the scheme expiring by 2042 or withdraw from the scheme on refund of amount paid by them. The complainant instead of accepting the offer filed this complaint. It was misconceived. Since the plantation was affected due to the factors beyond their control, the scheme was got frustrated. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A8 marked. While the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its authorised signatory Sri V. Sesha Sai. He did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that having issued the certificates promising to pay Rs. 50,000/- on the maturity date of 2012 cannot pre-empt the scheme by offering to refund the amount after utilizing the amount, and as such the complainant was entitled to Rs. 20,000/- per unit together with interest @ 9% p.a., and costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have awarded pro-rata amount of Rs. 30,000/- per each unit viz., Rs. 60,000/- together with costs when the respondent having promised to pay Rs. 50,000/- per unit by 2012.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to pro-rata amount claimed by her?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent a company floated a scheme “The Unique Teak Offer” wherein on every deposit of Rs. 1,000/- it promised to pay Rs. 50,000/- for one teak tree after 20 years per tree on the ground that each teak tree would yield Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly the complainant had paid Rs. 2,000/- for two teak trees in the year 1992 entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- per tree at the end of the scheme by 2012. In the meantime, consistently, the respondent has been informing the certificate holders that the trees had gained 10 to 15 feet height and started gaining required growth vide Ex. A4. By letter Ex. A6 dt. 7.6.2001 it informed the complainant and other certificate holders that the trees have grown on an average height of 1100 -1200 cms and 65 – 70 cms growth at the end of 2000 and that the experts had satisfied with their growth. Suddenly by letter Dt. 13.2.2004 (Ex. A8) it informed the complainant and other certificate holders unilaterally that the maturity period is extended up to 2042 namely another period of 30 years for the reasons “beyond the control of the company” . It offered to refund the amount, if the certificate holders cannot wait for that long. Aggrieved by it the complainant filed this complaint claiming pro-rata amount.
9) When the respondent has promised to pay Rs. 50,000/- after maturity of 20 years for every Rs. 1,000/- invested for purchase of one teak tree, the respondent after 12 years, changed the maturity period unilaterally from 2012 to 2042. Undoubtedly, the conditions did not authorise the respondent company to unilaterally change the period by extending to 2042. This is illegal and unjust. It is not contemplated. Even otherwise the respondent did not file any expert evidence to show that the growth of the trees could not be achieved due to the circumstances beyond its control. When the respondent has been informing the certificate holders that the growth was satisfactory and in fact experts also satisfied with its growth, cannot suddenly change in the midway, and request the certificate holders to take back the amount. It did not even offer to pay interest even. The respondent cannot appropriate the amount by stating that it was no more feasible. Having benefited by the deposit made by the complainant, utilized the amount in its business, it cannot turn round and extend the maturity period to an infinite period viz., 2042. It is very clear that it intends to avoid payment of amount. One can reasonably wait for 20 years but not 50 years. We do not intend to state that this extension to an indefinite period say 2042, is in order to deny the payment to the complainant. No doubt the Dist. Forum has awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, however without any basis. The complainant is undoubtedly entitled to pro-rata amount when the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- in 1992 and the respondent promised to pay Rs. 50,000/- by 2012 necessarily by 2004 it had to pay pro-rata amount viz., Rs. 2,500/- per year. The claim of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per tree is highly reasonable, just and proper.
10) Learned counsel for the respondent contended that it has preferred an appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum in F.A. 1030/2000 and the same was dismissed by this Commission by order Dt. 29.4.2005. Against the said order, it has preferred a revision in R.P. No. 63/20006 before the National Commission. The respondent did not request this Commission for disposal of these appeals in a common hearing. However, we may state that the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the respondent would not deter the complainant to prefer an appeal against inadequacy of compensation. The question of inadequacy of compensation was not an issue before this Commission earlier . Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed by her Rs. 30,000/- per tree viz., Rs. 60,000/-. Since the complainant was awarded earlier an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per unit with interest @ 9% p.a. we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., from 10.6.2004 till the date of realization. However, are not awarding any costs in this appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed in part consequently allowing the complaint in part directing the respondent to pay the balance of Rs. 20,000/- for remaining part of the amount with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., 10.6.2004 till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 12. 08. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
