BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 7^th April 2016         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.:    73/2016

Complainant/s:                      

Ms.Sarita Kulkarni,

Major, Depositor,

R/by Father and Joint Depositor & Senior Citizen (81 years) Mr.Govind Bhimarao Kulkarni, R/o.Gouripriya, 91-92, Rajnagar South, Hubballi 580032.          

(In Person)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. M/s.Unitech Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110007.
2. Ramesh Chandra, Chairman, M/s.Unitech Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110007.
3. Sanjaya Chandra, Managing Director, M/s.Unitech Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110007.
4. Ajay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s.Unitech Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110007.

 O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.49,000/- with interest @12.50% P.A. from 09.08.2014 till realization along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant and her father Mr.Govinda Bhimarao Kulkarni jointly deposited a sum of Rs.49000/- with the respondent under FDR No.1024020 on 10.08.2011 to be matured on 09.08.2014. As it to be matured on 09.08.2014 the complainant discharged the original FDR through RPAD on 06.08.2014 to the respondent for payment of the deposit amount. The respondents failed to repay the maturity amount on 09.08.2014 as such the complainants have made e-mail as well as telephonic calls and demands requesting to pay the deposit amount immediately but the respondent went on postponing the same with false assurance. Lastly towards the discharge of deposit amount respondent issued cheq no.695479 dtd.24.10.2015 for Rs.49,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank Saket New Delhi assuring the complainant that it will be encashed. When the complainants believing the version of respondent put it for encashment through their banker Axis Bank Hubli, same was   bounced with a CTS cheque return memo 14.01.2016 with payee bank endorsement, funds insufficient. The complainant issued legal notice to the respondents calling upon to pay the same through RPAD on 20.01.2016. All the respondents received the notice on 27.01.2016 but not complied. The non payment of the said amount amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     Despite service of notice all the respondents remained absent. By placing respondents exparte, exparte proceedings initiated.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 Complainant admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relies on documents. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively 
2. Accordingly
3.  As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

5.     The case of the complainant is that complainant is resident of cause title address within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Through online the complainant along with her father deposited a sum of Rs.49000/- under FDR No.1024020 account no.1020863 dtd.10.08.2011 through their banker Axis Bank Hubli and while it is also the case of the complainant that though it is FDR the complainant was receiving timely interest accrued on the said FDR as such the complainant is entitled for only face value of Rs.49000/-.

6.     Since the respondents remained absent and exparte proceedings has been initiated against the respondents the contents of the complaint stood unimpeached.

7.     Ex.C3 (a) and Ex. C3 (b) reveals that towards the repayment of the FDR amount Rs.49000/- the respondents have issued cheque towards settlement of the FDR amount. Ex.C4 CTS return memo of Axis Bank Hubli reveals that the said cheque was bounced for insufficient fund. Hence, it amounts to act of deficiency in service by the respondent and the complainant is entitled for the said amount, thereby the complainant with cogent and appulsvie evidence established her case of deficiency in service as such the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.

8.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly.

9.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaint is allowed in part. All the respondents jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant along with interest @12.50% from 09.08.2014 till 23.02.2016 and at the rate 9% P.A. thereon till realization along with Rs.1,500/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 7^th day of April 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR