BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 399/2005 Filed on 28.11.2005

Dated : 15.05.2009

Complainant:

R. Sreemathi, T.C 42/1440(15), Ganesh Nivas, Sreevaraha Nagar, Vallakkadavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd., New Bharath Building, Choupdeo Cross Lane No. 1, Rambhu Bhogle Marg, Byculla (E), Mumbai – 400 033.

    

2. 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 opened a cumulative deposit account with the 1^st opposite party M/s Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd., which was canvassed by and routed through the 2^nd opposite party Bajaj Capital, that the said deposit was for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the Deposit Receipt No. was 52311, the date of deposit was 08.03.2001, the maturity date of which was 07.03.2004 and maturity value was Rs. 15,410/-. Complainant surrendered the deposit receipt duly discharged for the payment of the maturity amount, but there was no response from the opposite parties. Complainant at last sent an advocate notice on 19.09.2005. But there was no response even though the notice was accepted by the opposite party. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 15,410/- with interest at 18% from 07.03.2004 along with Rs. 5000/- towards costs and compensation to the complainant.

1^st opposite party sent an affidavit in reply with copies of 3 documents which was received by this Forum on 25.01.2006, while the 1^st opposite party remained exparte on 12.01.2006. 2^nd opposite party did not file version or documents.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of deposit with interest thereon from the opposite parties?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

4. Other reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant's father has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. The Director of 1^st opposite party had sent an affidavit in reply with copies of three documents which was seen received in this office on 25.01.2006, while opposite parties remained exparte on 12.01.2006. Hence we are not inclined to mark the documents sent by the 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party did not file affidavit. Complainant has been cross examined by the 2^nd opposite party.

Points (i) to (iv):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant opened a cumulative deposit account with the 1^st opposite party Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd and the same was canvassed by and routed through the 2^nd opposite party. The cumulative deposit No. is 52311. Ext. P1 is the cumulative Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party. As per Ext. P1, Deposit No. is 52311, amount of deposit is Rs. 10,000/-, date of deposit is 08.03.2001, rate of interest is 14.5% per annum, period of deposit is 36 months, maturity date of deposit is 07.03.2004 and maturity value of deposit is Rs. 15,410/-. It has also been the case of the complainant that, though the complainant had surrendered the said deposit receipt, duly discharged, for the payment of the maturity amount, there was no response from the opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 13.09.2005 addressed to opposite parties. Ext. P3 series include copies of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards. Submission by the complainant is that even after the receipt of Ext. P2 advocate notice, there was no response from opposite parties. In the affidavit in reply sent by the 1^st opposite party, it has been mentioned that 1^st opposite party company has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction New Delhi under Sec. 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act 1985. Further it has been replied by the 1^st opposite party that complainant has not obtained leave from the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and that the present complaint is nullity and of no effect.

In this context, complainant made a reliance on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Sneha Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Jyothi Rathore, reported in 11(2006) CPJ 195 (NC), wherein the contention of the company was that company declared sick in view of Sec. 22 of Sick Industrial Companies Act and Fora below should not have proceeded with complaint, whereas the Hon'ble National Commission held that Sec. 22 of Sick Industrial Companies Act is no bar on hearing of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and contention repelled being without any merit and found complaint maintainable. Applying the law as is obtained and found in the above decision we find the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Non-payment of maturity amount as per Ext. P1 would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. Complainant did not furnish any document showing that the said deposit was canvassed by and routed through the 2^nd opposite party. Hence complainant cannot say that there was deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on record, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of Rs. 15,410/- with interest at 12% per annum from 08.03.2004 till realisation.

In the result, complaint is allowed. 1^st opposite party shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,410/- with interest at 12% per annum from 08.03.2004 till realisation. 1^st opposite party shall pay the said amount 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. 399/2005

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Lekshmi Kanthan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of Cumulative Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by 1^st opposite party dated 07.04.2001.

P2 - Copy of advocate notice dated 13.09.2005 addressed to opposite parties.

P3

series - Copies of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT