BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th of February 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.249/2010
(Admitted on 20.09.2010)
Mrs.Laxmi,
Do. Late Shivananda bhat,
Aged about 26 years,
RA. Carstreet, Uppinangady,
Puttur Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Udayananda A.)
VERSUS
1. Ms. Mahamaya Finance Corporation Regd.,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Office at Main Road,
Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District.
2. Mr.Mohan Bhat,
Partner,
M/s. Mahamaya Finance Corporation Regd.,
Office at Main Road, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada District. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.Sanjay D.)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, she had deposited Rs.12,500/- in her name when she was minor in Opposite Party Finance. The same was kept for 7 years with maturity value of Rs.37,500/- and the date of maturity was 24.07.2002. Thereafter, the Complainant has re-invested the same for further 7 years till 23.07.2009. Subsequently, the Complainant demanded refund of the Fixed Deposit but the Opposite Parties refused to repay the amount, thereafter issued a legal notice dated 28.04.2010 calling upon them to pay the above said amount but the Opposite Parties failed to comply the demand made therein. Hence, the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- towards the maturity value of the fixed deposit along with interest at 12% p.a. from 23.07.2009 to 23.08.2010 and also claimed Rs.51,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version submitted that, one Mr.Shivananda Bhat had deposited Rs.12,500/- in the name of his minor daughter Kum.Laxmi on 24.07.1995 and the same was matured on 24.07.2002 for the maturity value of Rs.37,500/-. It is stated that, they are not aware whether the Complainant is the daughter of late Shivananda Bhat. Since the Opposite Parties did not know Kum.Laxmi personally she was requested to bring the proof of identity but she had not produced any proof, hence the Opposite Parties not paid the amount. It is denied that, the Complainant has re-invested the money for further period of 7 years and submitted that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Laxmi (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C4 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Mohan Bhat (RW1), Managing Partner of the Opposite Party No.1 (i.e., Opposite Party No.2) filed counter affidavit. Ex R1 to R3 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. The Opposite Parties filed notes of arguments.
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): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Ex C1 produced by the Complainant issued by Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Mahamaya Finance Corporation Registered, Main Road, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District dated 24.07.1995 with a seal and signature of the Managing Partner of the above finance corporation reveals that, one Miss. Laxmi (minor) daughter of Sri. Shivananda Bhat i.e., the father and guardian of the above minor deposited Rs.12,500/- on 24.07.1995 for the period of 84 months. The date of maturity shown as 24.07.2002 and the maturity value shown as Rs.37,500/-, the date of birth of the minor child shown as 16.11.1982. From the backside of the above fixed deposit receipt, the Opposite Party has endorsed that, the above said deposit has been renewed for the further period of 84 months from 24.07.2002 to 23.07.2009. The above fixed deposit receipt is not denied by the Opposite Party in this case. But the contention of the Opposite Party is that, one Mr.Shivananda Bhat had deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- in the name of his minor daughter Kumari Laxmi on 24.07.1995 and the above said deposit was matured on 24.07.2002 and the maturity value is Rs.37,500/-. During the 1st week of August 2002 one girl visited the Opposite Party’s office with the fixed deposit receipt held in the name of minor Kum.Laxmi, daughter of Shivananda Bhat and claimed the refund of the deposit. Since the Opposite Parties did not know the Kum. Laxmi personally, she requested to bring proof of identity that she is the daughter of Mr.Shivananda Bhat and also get the proof of date of birth so as to confirm that she is the beneficiary of the fixed deposit and also denied that, the Complainant has re-invested the money for further period of 7 years.
We have heard the arguments of the parties and also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, wherein, we find that, the Opposite Party in their version as well as in their memo dated 07.12.2010 categorically admitted that, the Complainant has unilaterally re-invested the fixed deposit without the consent of the Opposite Parties. The above statement of the Opposite Parties is sufficient to hold that, the Complainant has re-invested the fixed deposit with the Opposite Parties. It is not the definite case of the Opposite Parties that, the maturity value of Rs.37,500/- was paid to the Complainant after the maturity date. From the records it is proved that, the Opposite Parties not refunded the fixed deposit amount till this date. The contention raised by the Opposite Parties that, they did not know Kum.Laxmi personally and sought for identity proof etc. etc cannot be accepted because the Complainant is holding the original fixed deposit receipt with her. That itself is sufficient to hold that, the Complainant is the daughter of one Mr.Shivananda Bhat. The Opposite Parties cannot sit as a court of law while paying the matured amount by demanding date of birth or any identity proof etc. etc. The Opposite Parties should have obtained all the particulars at the time of receipt of the fixed deposit in the name of minor not after the maturity.
However, the Opposite Parties produced a true copy of the ledger extract, wherein the Opposite Parties endorsed as follows:-
“Please obtain proof of date of birth, proof of identity card, attestation of signature of Laxmi by her father and make the payment. She will come on 05.08.2002”.
The above endorsement is not countersigned by the Complainant or her guardians. In the absence of the same, the above endorsement cannot be considered in this case. Admittedly, the above deposit of Rs.12,500/- has been made by the father of the Complainant on 24.07.1995 with the Opposite Party and the same has been matured on 24.07.2002 and subsequently the same has been re-invested for further 7 years. The Opposite Parties without any valid reason withhold the amount till this date or not refunded the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service.
Therefore, we hereby direct the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.37,500/- i.e., the maturity value along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand and five hundred only) i.e., the maturity value along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment and also pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2011).
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Laxmi – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 24.07.1995: Original Mahamaya Cash Certificate bearing No.001661/95.
Ex C2 – 28.04.2010: Copy of the Lawyer’s notice addressed to the Opposite Parties.
Ex C3 – : Postal acknowledgement (2 in numbers).
Ex C4 – 19.07.2010: Reply notice issued by the Opposite Parties.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.Mohan Bhat, Managing Partner of the Opposite Party No.1 (i.e., Opposite Party No.2).
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex R1 – 23.03.2002: Notarized copy of the fixed deposit ledger.
Ex R2 – 19.07.2010: Reply issued by the Opposite Parties.
Ex R3 – 27.07.2010: Postal acknowledgement.
Dated:28.02.2011 PRESIDENT
