BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 115/2008 against C.C. 608/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
G. Anji Reddy, S/o. G. Narsa Reddy
Age: 67 years, Retd. Govt. Employee
H.No. 1-8-32, Chikkadpally
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
Shirdi Sai Investments
Rep. by its Proprietor
Kaparthi Siva Kumar
Flat No. 204, Azam Complex
Shivam Road, Nallakunta
Hyderabad-500 044. *** Respondent/
Op.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Yadagiri Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. A. Suryanarayana Murthy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORALAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he made four deposits with the respondent an investment concern agreeing to pay the amount with compound interest details of which are as follows:
Date | Deposit amount | Rate of Interest | Maturity Date | Maturity value |
25.12.1998 | 40,000/- | 24% | 25.12.1999 | 49,600/- |
05.02.1999 | 5,000/- | 24% | 05.02.2000 | 6,200/- |
17.03.1999 | 30,000/- | 24% | 17.03.2000 | 37,200/- |
03.11.1999 | 15,500/- | 24% | 12 months | 19,220/- |
3) The respondent had paid the full amount pertaining to the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- while denying the payment at compound rate of interest in regard to the remaining deposits. It had to pay Rs. 1,31,809, Rs. 94,0343/- and Rs. 52,563/- on three deposits as on 1.7.2004. However, it had paid Rs. 50,000/- and the balance due was Rs. 2,34,153/- after calculating the interest @ 24% p.a., The respondent had paid Rs. 1 lakh on 9.8.2004 thus an amount of Rs. 1,34,153/- was still due, and therefore he claimed the said amount together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
4) The respondent resisted the case. It alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation. There was no cause of action for him to file the complaint. The complainant himself accepted to receive interest @ 24% p.a., on Rs. 40,000/- on 25.12.1998, Rs. 5,000/- on 5.2.1999, Rs. 30,000/- on 17.3.1999 and Rs. 15,500/- on 4.11.1998. While receiving the amounts viz., Rs. 50,000/- on 1.7.2004, Rs. 1 lakh on 9.8.2004 he endorsed that the amount received towards discharge of liability at agreed rate of interest @ 24% p.a. There was no stipulation that compoundable interest is payable. Having received the maturity amount, he was not entitled to re-open the matter and claim the amounts by calculating compound rate of interest. There was 143 days delay in filing the complaint and the plea he misplaced the FDR cannot be accepted. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of his case, filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its proprietor and did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had received the amount calculating the interest @ 24% p.a. and no where it was mentioned that he was entitled to compound rate of interest. More over he received the amount in full and final satisfaction evidenced under endorsement made by him. Therefore the complaint was dismissed.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that he made the endorsement having received the amount in full in respect of deposit of Rs. 5,000/-. He did not make a mention in regard to other deposits. The respondent agreed to pay the amount with interest @ 24% p.a., on yearly basis. However, he had taken more than four years to re-pay the said amount and therefore it could not be said that it was towards full discharge of the amount due to him. Therefore he prayed that the amount claimed be paid to him.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had deposited the amounts mentioned above wherein the respondent had agreed to repay with interest @ 24% p.a. The date of maturity and the maturity value was also mentioned evidenced by Exs. A1 & A2 as under :
Date | Deposit amount | Maturity Date | Maturity value |
25.12.1998 | 40,000/- | 25.12.1999 | 49,600/- |
05.02.1999 | 5,000/- | 05.02.2000 | 6,200/- |
17.03.1999 | 30,000/- | 17.03.2000 | 37,200/- |
03.11.1999 | 15,500/- | 12 months | 19,220/- |
As against the amounts payable the respondent had paid Rs. 6,200/- on 26.2.200, Rs. 50,000/- on 1.7.2004 and Rs. 1 lakh on 9.8.2004. There is no dispute as to the payment of interest pertaining FDR of Rs. 5,000/- dt. 5.2.1999. The only dispute is with regard to other three FDRs as mentioned above. While the complainant claims the interest at compound rate, the respondent asserts that he had to pay interest @ 24% p.a. as mentioned in the FDRs. It may be mentioned that interest is payable at 24% p.a. This would in no way be construed that the interest is to be paid at compound rate. The said fact cannot be deduced from a reading of the FDR.
As the complainant was entitled to interest @ 24% p.a., which the respondent had paid and having received the amount the complainant made endorsement on the FDRs. No doubt he made a mention towards full discharge of liability on one of receipts, he did not so mention for the remaining FDRs. Since the complainant had received the amounts with interest as stipulated it cannot be said that he was entitled to interest at compound rate. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard by the Dist. Forum. There are no merits in the complaint.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 07. 07. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
