Karnataka

Gadag

CC/34/2014

Channabasayya.K.Hiremath. R/o Yerebeleri. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s The Managing Director, Guruteak Investment (Mys) Pvt Ltd. Bangalore - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Sajjanar

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H., PRESIDENT:

           1.   The complainant has filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP alleging the deficiency of service for not refunding the deposited amount after the period of maturity, complainant prays to direct the OP to refund the maturity amount along with 18% interest and compensation, a sum of Rs.22,500 for deficiency in service.

The brief facts of the Complaint

           2.    The Complainant had deposited Rs.5,000.00 in the OP’s company for which the OP had issued bond for a maturity period of nine years i.e., 26.12.2012 and the maturity amount will be Rs.12,500-00. After maturity period the complainant tried to approach the OP for the refund of maturity amount, he came to know that the Gadag Branch of OP had been closed. The complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel to the OP to refund the maturity amount, but the OP had failed to make the payment not he had replied to the notice. Hence the complainant filed his Complaint for the above mentioned relief.

           3.      In pursuance of the notice issued to the OP, the OP had not appeared before the Forum. Hence, it is ex-parte

          4.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and arguments placed by the complainant the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Weather the complainant proves that there is a negligence or deficiency in service by the OP?

2. Weather the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. What order?

 

Our findings to the

Point No.1: in the Affirmative,

Point No.2 : Partially Affirmative

Point No.3 : as per the final Order

R E A S O N S

       5.POINT NO.1:  Perused the records, the case of the Complainant is that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000-00 towards a teak tree in the OP’s Company, the OP had issued a TEAK BOND Bearing No.35951 dated 26/06/2003 that after a maturity period of 9 years ie., on 26/06/2012 the maturity amount will be Rs. 12,500-00, the OP had failed to respond the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel, and even to the notice issued by the forum. Wherefore it’s clearly shows that there is deficiency and negligence on the part of OP Hence the answer to the point No.1 is affirmative.

           6.POINT No.2   As the complainant had invested Rs.5,000.00 in the OP’s company, the OP had failed to refund the maturity amount after maturity period. Hence complainant is entitled for Rs 12,500.00 along with 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint and a compensation of Rs3,000-00 and Rs.2,000.00 towards the cost of this proceeding is awarded. Hence the answer to the point No.2 is Partially Affirmative

         7. POINT NO.3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed in part. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

//O R D E R//

1.   The Complaint is partially allowed with costs.

2.  The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.12,500-00 (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) towards the matured amount with 10% interest P.A from the date of filing, a sum of Rs.3,000-00 (Rupees three thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand) for the cost of the proceedings, should be paid within one month from the date of the order, fails to pay the said amount within one month, the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest p.a. from the date of this order.

3. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 05^th day of October, 2015)