Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/2/2015

Kannemadugu Radhakrishna, S/o. K.Venkataramana - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Agrigold Farm Estates India Pvt., Ltd., by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                      Filing Date:- 05-01-2015                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: -10-08-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                              SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

           MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND

                                                              FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.02/2015

Between

Kannemadugu  Radhakrishna,

S/o. K.Venkataramana, aged 29 years,

Barbar, residing at 2-1217 Padmavathi

Nagar, Piler- 517 214, Chittoor District.

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And

i) M/S. Agrigold Farm Estates India Pvt., Ltd.,

By its Branch Manager, 6-65/1, R.C.Road,

2^nd Floor, Shriram Towers, Tirupati.

 

ii) M/S. Agrigold Farm Estates Pvt., Ltd.,

By its Authorised Signatory, Surya Towers,

M.G.Road, Vijayawada-5200010.

 

                                                                                                  …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 24.07.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G. Ramaiah pillai, counsel for the complainant, Sri.S.Manoj kumar, Sri.A.V.L.N.Sharma and Sri.N.Raveendra counsels for the opposite party No.1 & 2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Sections 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.38,372/- being the matured amount covered under bounced cheque issued by the opposite parties and Rs.38,372/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

          2. The brief facts of the case are: The opposite parties 1 &2 are dealing in business of real estate, marketing, selling of products and finance business and the complainant joined as a member in the security deposit scheme on 03.02.2011 with ID No. SID 12848971 and he deposited an amount of Rs.32,400/- in installments from 03.02.2011 to 03.02.2014.

          3.  But the opposite parties instead of payment of matured amount to the complainant, issued a cheque for Rs.38,372/- towards maturity amount which is drawn on Karur Vysya Bank dated 03.10.2014, the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient”. In spite of several notices issued by the complainant the opposite parties failed to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Hence he filed the present complaint.

          4. The opposite parties 1&2 filed their written version by admitting the payment of amount of Rs.32,400/- by the complainant to them and further contended that they received the said amount towards the cost of plot and not under the security deposit scheme. The opposite parties admitted that they issued cheque on 03.10.2014 for Rs.38,372/- as the complainant requested them for refund of the amount. The opposite parties further contended that because of rumors by unknown persons from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh create uproar among their customers to destroy the brand image of their company in the market, which resulted to seize the properties of the company by the government and the case was handed over to the CID which is still pending in special court of Eluru in West Godavari district. The opposite parties further contended that all the documents and particulars of the investors are submitted to the police during investigation and the particulars of the complainant also submitted to the police. Hence they could not realize the amount covered under the cheque issued by them, as the case was pending and further contended that the dishonor of the cheque will not fall within the purview of definition of “Un fair trade practice”, as it is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and pray the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

          5. The complainant and the opposite parties 1&2 filed their respective Chief affidavits and written arguments and Ex.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the complainant where as no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

         6. On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:   

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?
3. To what relief?

          7. Point No:-(i):   It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.32,400/- from the complainant through installments commenced from 03.02.2011 to 03.02.2014 covered under Ex.A1. The opposite parties further contended that they collected an amount of Rs.32,400/- from the complainant towards purchase of the plot and they never collected an amount under security deposit scheme and the opposite parties stated that they issued cheque for Rs.38,372/- on 03.10.2014, as. the complainant requested them for refund of amount deposited by them which is covered under Ex.A2. Such is the case, the opposite parties are expected to issue cheque for refund of an amount collected from the complainant for Rs.32,400/-, but instead of doing so, they issued cheque for Rs.38,372/- for which the complainant is also accepted.

          8. The next contention of the opposite parties that all the properties and documents of the company was seized by the government and the case was handed over  to the CID and same was still pending in the court of law in Eluru and the documents pertaining to the transactions of the complainant was also seized by the police. Hence they could not realize the amounts covered under the cheque issued to the customers as they were already seized. But the opposite parties fail to file any documentary proof in order to substantiate their contentions. Hence in the absence of documentary evidence it could not be accepted. Therefore it is apparent that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

          9.  The next contention of the opposite parties that the dishonor of the cheque will not fall within the purview of the definition of “Unfair trade practice” and it is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But as per “Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act not in derogation of any other law:- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”  Hence the contention of the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction by virtue of Sec 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be accepted. Therefore the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is answered.

        10. Point no.(ii):-  In view of the detail discussions held on point (i), the complainant being a consumer, who paid an amount of Rs.32,400/- under the security deposit scheme and he is entitled for an amount of Rs.38,372/- the amount covered under cheque which was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for the refund of an amount on 03.10.2014. If at all the complainant deposited the above said amount in any Nationalized Bank he may get the interest @ 9% per annum as prevailing rate of interest as on today. Hence under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of an amount paid by him with interest. Hence the reliefs sought for by the complainant appears to be genuine and reasonable and the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs.38,372/- with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque i.e.03.10.2014 till realization and also the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence this point is answered.    

         11. Point no. (iii):- In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.38,372/- (rupees thirty eight thousand three hundred and seventy two only) with interest @ 9% per annum from 03.10.2014 till realization and the opposite parties 1&2 further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousands only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousands only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousands only) shall also carry interest with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization.

            Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum this the 10^th day of August, 2015

         Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-                             

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

C.C.No.02/2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Kannemadugu Radhakrishna (Chief/Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: Muppasani Syam Prasad (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of receipt No.57247345 Customer No. SID 12848971 issued by Agrigold Farm of opposite party No.1 infavour of the complainant  under the description SID/GSD at Rs.30/- for 36 months from 03.02.2011 to 03.02.2014 for 1080 days amounting to Rs.32,400/-.  Dt: 09.02.2011.
	Cheque(Original) bearing No. 000359 for Rs.38,372/- issued by opposite partyNo.1 payable at Karur Vysya Bank, Tirupati infavour of the complainant. Dt: 03.10.2014.
	Union Bank, Piler challan for collection of the cheque amount of Rs.38,372/-. Dt: 04.10.2014.
	A True copy of Return memo of Karur Vysya Bank with endorsement Insufficient Funds. Dt: 13.10.2014.
	A True copy of Return memo issued by Union Bank to the customer/complainant with endorsement Insufficient Funds. Dt: 20.10.2014.
	Office copy of Legal notice to opposite party No.1 and 2 with postal acknowledgements. Dt: 03.11.2014.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Dt: 11.12.2014.
	Postal acknowledgement from Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 05.01.2015.
	Photo copy of letter to the Postal Superintendent, Tirupati to intimate the delivery of Regd. Post of opposite party No.1. Dt: 20.12.2014.
	News item of Eeenadu about the agitation of the depositors against the Agrigold Farm for non payment of maturity amount. Dt: 25.12.2014.
	Letter from Postal Superintendent stating that the Registered cover was delivered to Opposite Party No.1 on 12.12.2014. Dt:02.01.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

NIL

 

Sd/-

                                                                                                                    President

.

                                                          

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: -1. The Complainant.

                   2. The opposite parties 1&2.