BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 392/2005 Filed on 28.11.2005<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> T.V.Lekshmi Kanthan, T.C 42/1440(15), Ganesh Nivas, Sreevaraha Nagar, Vallakkadavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.M/s Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd., New Bharath Building, Ghoupdeo Cross Lane No. 1, Rambhu Bhogle Marg, Byculla(E), Mumbai – 400 033.<br /> <br /> 2.Bajaj capital, Branch Office, Attukal complex Building, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30.08.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 11.06.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SRI.G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant opened a cumulative deposit account with the 1st opposite party and the same was canvassed by and routed through the 2nd opposite party. The cumulative deposit No. 57169 was for an amount of Rs. 12000/-. The maturity date of deposit was 08.08.2004 and the maturity value of deposit was Rs. 18218/-. Complainant surrendered the deposit receipt duly discharged for the payment of the maturity amount. But there was no response from any of the opposite parties. Complainant is entitled for the maturity value along with subsequent interest. Many reminders were sent by the complainant and at last an advocate notice was issued on 19.09.2005, but there was no response even though the notice was accepted. The action of the opposite parties is deficiency of service. Hence this complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 18218/- with interest at 18% from 08.08.2004 to the complainant and Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties did not appear inspite of notice and on 02.01.2006 opposite parties set exparte. On 25.01.2006 1st opposite party sent an affidavit in reply contending that 1st opposite party had 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 and the complainant has not obtained leave from the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to proceed with the present complaint against the 1st opposite party and hence the present complaint is a nullity and of no effect. Complainant is not entitled to proceed in any manner against the company. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)whether the complaint is maintainable under consumer Protection Act?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of deposit of Rs. 18218/- with interest thereon from the opposite parties?<br /> (iv)Other reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked three documents as Exts. P1 to P3. The Director of the opposite party has sent an affidavit in reply with copies of three documents which was seen received in this office on 25.01.2006 while on 12.01.2006 opposite parties set exparte. Hence we are not inclined to mark the documents sent by the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Points (i) to (iv):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant has opened a cumulative deposit account with the 1st opposite party and the same was canvassed by and routed through the 2nd opposite party. The cumulative deposit No. stated the complaint is 57169. Ext. P1 is the cumulative fixed deposit receipt bearing No. 57169 issued by the 1st opposite party. The said Ext. P1 is seen issued in the name of the complainant. As per Ext. P1 the amount of deposit is Rs. 12000/-, date of deposit is 31.10.2001, period of deposit is 36 months, rate of interest is 14% per annum, date of maturity of deposit is 08.08.2004 and the maturity value of deposit is Rs. 18218/-. It has also been the case of the complainant that the complainant surrendered the said deposit receipt duly discharged for the payment of the maturity amount. But there was no response from any of the opposite parties. So complainant sent an advocate notice dated 19.09.2005 to opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice. Ext. P3 is the photocopy showing the postal receipts and acknowledgement cards. The submission by the complainant is that even after the receipt of Ext. P2, there was no response from the opposite parties. In the affidavit in reply sent by the 1st opposite party, it has been mentioned that 1st 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 1st opposite party that complainant has not obtained leave from the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and that the present complaint is a nullity and of no effect. In this context, complainant made a reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 11(2006) CPJ 195(NC) wherein the contention of the company was that company declared sick in view of Sec. 22 Sick Industrial Companies Act and Fora below should not have proceeded with complaint. The Hon'ble National Commission held that Sec. 22, Sick Industrial Companies Act is no bar on hearing of the complaint under Consumer Protection Act and contention repelled and complaint maintainable. Applying the law as is obtained and found in the above decision, we find the complaint is maintainable. Non-payment of the maturity amount as per Ext. P1 would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Deficiency in service is proved. Complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount of Rs. 18218/- with 14% interest per annum from 08.08.2004 till realisation. <br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. 1st opposite party shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 18218/- with 14% interest per annum from 08.08.2004 till realisation. 1st opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs. 1000/- towards the cost of complaint. The said amounts shall be paid within two months from the date of this order, failing which 1st opposite party shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 392/2005<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> PW1 – T.V. Lekshmikanthan<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of fixed deposit receipt No. 57169 dated 31.10.2001 for Rs. 12000/- issued by opposite party. <br /> <br /> P2 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 13.09.2005 issued by the complainant. <br /> <br /> P3 - Photocopy of postal receipt No. 2244 and 2246 and photocopy of acknowledgment card. <br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />