BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th SEPTEMBER 2015
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No 61/2015
BETWEEN:
1. MR Chittharanjan
S/o Late M. Pakeerappa,
Happy Home Apartments,
Arya Samaj Road,
Mangalore 575003.
2. Mrs. Lalitha Chittharanjan
W/o Mr. Chittharanjan
Happy Home Apartments,
Arya Samaj Road,
Mangalore 575 003 …. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri. B.K. Satish Yadapadithaya)
VERSUS
M/S Futura Finance Corporation (R)
Represented by its Authorised Person
Mr. Bala Subramanya Bhat,
Second Floor, Nalappad Building
Kadri Road, Mangalore 575 003. …. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the opposite party : Sri. Ravindranath P.S)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
1. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:
The Complainant deposited certain sum of money under fixed deposit with the Opposite Party finance, branch office situated at Kadri Road Mangalore. In order to save the time as well as for the sake of convenience, we have taken up all the cases together and passed common order as under.
The details of which are furnished in the schedule here below:-
Sl. No. | Certificate No. | Date of Deposit | No. of debts | Rate of Interest | Date of Redemption | Matured Amount |
1 | A 5384 | 01.12.2004 | 10 | 12% | 01.12.2006 | 1,16,330 |
2 | A 5383 | 01.12.2004 | 5 | 12% | 01.12.2006 | 1,79,130 |
3 | A 6737 | 30.03.2004 | 1 | 12% | 13.07.2006 | 1,65,431 |
4 | A 6740 | 26.03.2004 | 10 | 10.5% | 26.03.2006 | 2,51,996 |
| | | | | | |
It is stated that, at the time of depositing the money opposite party agreed to repay the same with interest. But now the Opposite Party closed its branch office at Mangalore and the Complainant approached the Opposite Party at Futura Finance for repayment of amounts along with deposit receipts. But the Opposite Party has failed to pay the same amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon’ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay matured amount along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party, wherein the opposite party stated that they have invested the money collected from the depositors by way of advancing loan to its customers. But, the borrowers did not repay the loan to the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party suffered huge loss and as a result Opposite Party could not repay the money to the complainant.
It is also stated that, the complainant and the Opposite Party mutually agreed to repay the only amount with interest accrued upto the fixed deposit receipts shown in the respective receipts produced by the complainant and not beyond the date of fixed deposit receipt. Denied the deficiency as prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. On the basis of pleadings, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:-
- Whether the Complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation.
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative.
Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
4. POINT NO.(i):
As far as issued No. (i) is concerned, it is admitted that the Opposite Party in this case issued Exhibits C series to the Complainant for the amount deposited.
Financial service is one of the services specifically mentioned in Clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act. As far as limitation is concerned, sub Section (2) of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act states that notwithstanding anything contending Sub-Section (1), the complaint may be entertained after the specified period, if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum within such period. Now it is a well-established proposition that when the person who received the fixed deposit has failed to repay the deposit on the date of maturity, it is a recurring cause of action for the depositor so long as the person who received the deposit has not denied his liability to repay the deposit. The Opposite Parties have no case that they have denied the Complainant right to recover the deposit until they filed their version before this Forum. The Complainant right is denied for the first time in the version. Therefore, we are of the view that, the Complainant has recurring cause of action until and unless it has been proved that the entire deposited amount has been paid to the Complainant. Hence, the point No. (i) is held in favour of the Complainant.
POINTS NO.(ii) to (v):
As far as issued No.(ii) is concerned, the subject deposited amount deposited by the Complainant before the Opposite Party at M/s Futura Finance Corporation (R), Mangalore. The amount has been matured on the dates mentioned in the Ex.C 1 to 6. However, the Ex.C1 to C6 produced by the Complainant in the case goes to show that the amount has been matured on the date mentioned therein, which date has been already expired. However, the Opposite Party issued a receipt for acknowledging the deposit and agreed to pay interest on the date of maturity mentioned therein. When such being the case, it is the bounded duty to repay the amount along with interest as agreed by them on the date of maturity. It is a settled position that once the non-banking financial institutions/company/firm accepts the deposit from the public, the person who accepted the deposits shall refund the same along with the interest. But in the given case the Opposite Party Company has admitted the deposits but failed to repay the same on the date of maturity or within the reasonable time thereafter is a deficiency in service. The contention taken by the Opposite Party that, they have suffered financial problem because of nonpayment of the loan borrowers is not justifiable because the complainant is not responsible for the same. The Opposite Party finance is liable to refund the entire amount along with interest as mentioned in the receipts Therefore, we hold that, the Opposite Party i.e. M/s Futura Finance corporation (R) represented by its Authorized person is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant the amount mentioned in the FD receipts along with interest.
In view of the above said reasons, we hereby directed the Opposite Party to pay in total Rs. 7,12,887/- mentioned in Ex C-1 to C6) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective date of maturity mentioned in the receipt till the date of payment. Further pay Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. M/s Futura Finance corporation (R) represented by its Authorized person shall pay in total Rs. 7,12,887/- under Ex C-1 to C-6 to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the respective date maturity mentioned in the receipts till the date of payment. Further pay Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The F.D.R., if any, deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2015).
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Mr. Chittharanjan - CC.No.61/2015.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
In CC.No. 61/2015:
Ex C1 to C6 – Original F.D. Receipt (1 in Nos. (4).
1. 26-03-2004 - Original fixed deposit number B 6740 a
sum of Rs. 2,51,996/- issued by the opposite party.
2. 13-07-2004 - Original fixed deposit number B 6737 a
sum of Rs. 1,65,431/- issued by the opposite party.
3. 01-12-2004 - Original fixed deposit number A 5383 a
sum of Rs. 1,79,130/- issued by the opposite party.
4. 26-03-2004 - Original fixed deposit number A 5384 a
sum of Rs. 1,16,330/- issued by the opposite party.
5. 03-10-2014 - office copy of Advocate’s notice.
6. Acknowledgment.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
CW-1 : Mr. Bala Subramanya Bhat - CC.No.61/2015.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil –
Dated: 30.09.2015. PRESIDENT
Dated: 30-9-2015
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. M/s Futura Finance corporation (R) represented by its Authorized person shall pay in total Rs. 7,12,887/- under Ex C-1 to C-6 to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the respective date maturity mentioned in the receipts till the date of payment. Further pay Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The F.D.R., if any, deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2015).
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
