Complaint Filed on: 09.02.2023

Disposed on: 20.09.2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

20^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

COMPLAINT No.53/2023

O R D E R

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for the following;

1. Take cognizance of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the OP under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, secure the presence of the OP and direct the OP to refund the maturity amount of Rs.4,13,000/- along with interest at 13%, 14% and 14.5% respectively p.a., from the date of maturity of the deposit i.e., 01.01.2017, 21.07.2019 and 09.11.2018 respectively till the date of payment and also direct the OP to refund the share amoutn of Rs.1,000/- in Nikhara Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited vide Certificate No.657.
2. Punish the OP in accordane with law.
3. Pass necessary order/s to adequately compensate the complaiannt, including the cost of litigation.
4. Pass any other order/s or direction to the OP, which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that the OP is a company registered under companies act by following the due process of law and engaged in the financial activities like lending money and mobilise funds from the public for its activities. The complainanthas attracted to invest his savings by way of fixed deposit and invested his Rs.50,000/- on 11.01.2016, Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.07.2016 and another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 09.11.2015 and the maturity date is for a period of one years and three years from the date of fixed deposit i.e., on 01.01.2017, 21.07.2019 & 09.11.2018 respectively.The OP had issued fixed deposit receipt in the form of demand promissory note and consideration receipt for the above FDs on respective dates.  The OP has also assured to pay interest at 13%, 14% and 14.5% p.a., respectively on the above said FDs. But the OP failed to follow the assurance and agreed terms of payment of interest to the complainant.

3. When the complainant approached the OP, OP keep on promising that unpaid interest will be paid at the earliest, but this never happened and postponing the same by giving one or the other reason which are not justifiable in law. By believing the words of the OP complainant has waited for the reasonable time even the date of maturity.Complainant is the member of NikharaSouharda Credit Co-operative Limited, having acquired a share of the value of Rs.1000/- vide No.657 and membership No.655, which is the sister concern of Nikhara Group. Even after the maturity date, complainant demanded for refund of FD amount with interest accrued thereon. But the OP keep on promising the payment of maturity value at the earliest citing one or other reasons, but OP has not paid any amount till today. Hence complainant got issued legal notice on 12.12.2022 calling the OP for payment of maturity value along with interest.  OP never turned up for payment of maturity value. Hence this complaint.

4. On receipt of the notice OP did appear through its counsel and filed its version.  In its version, OP submits that complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the C.P.Act.  The definitions of complainant, complaint, consumer dispute and service as defined in Section 2(1) of the C.P.Act do not cover the claims, complainant is not a consumer.  The complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings.  There is no cause of action and the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  Further OP submits that complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act.

5. Further OP submits that the complainant has invested Rs.3,00,000/- with OP are denied as false and incorrect and it is strict proof of the same.  The averments made in para 4 to 7 are false and incorrect.  The OP submits that complainant was not invested any amount at any point of time as deposit, hence question of default in payment of Rs.3,00,000/- does not arise.  The OP is not liable to pay the said amount.  The allegations of deficiency in service are wholly misconceived, false, untenable in law. 

6. Further OP submits that complainant may be known to them but has not produced any proper documentsthat there is no relationship of lender and borrower between the complainant and the OP.Hence the question of issuing any document and executing on demand promissory note and consideration receipt in favour of the complainant doesnot arise at all, hence, Op is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.  Therefore, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

7.  Complainant has filed affidavit evidence on his behalf with documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to P5.  The OP has also filed affidavit evidence and relied on one document Ex.R1.

8. Complainant counsel filed their written arguments. Heard the arguments of the complainant only.  Though sufficient time was given to the OP to file written arguments and to address their arguments, they have not filed any written arguments nor addressed their arguments. Hence arguments of OP is taken as nil.

9. The points that arises for our consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

10. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

11. Point No.1 and 2:These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, evidence, written arguments of the complainant and documents filed by both the parties. We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as verison filed by the OP.  The verison filed by the OP is formal in nature, in respect of denying the legitimate claim of the complainant.

12. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleadings of the parties goes to show that the complainant and OP are known to each other.  The complainant has availed the service of the OP in respect of deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- with the OP organisation and the OP agreed to return the amount together with 13%, 14% and 14.5%  p.a., with maturity value of Rs.4,13,000/- payable on the maturity date respectively of the amount for which the OP has issued a receipt for the same as per Ex.P1 and P2.
13. It is settled proposition of law that if the F.Ds are matured, it is the duty of the concerened Bank/ or any financial institution to inform their customers for taking back the matured sum, if not to re-deposit with notice to their customers as per the decision reported in 2021(2) CPR 597 (NC) – Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Lakshwinder Singh where in it is held that – “Any customer who deposits amount under reinvestment plan is under assumption that the FDR will be renewed either till he approaches or gives any other specific instruciton to the Bank”.

14. In the instant case, the complainant has sought for the matured sum covered under the said receipt for which she made several correspondence to the OP but by one or the other pretext, OP had dragged the matter and finally the OP has requested the complainant that he has faced financial problem due to pandemic and he has requested the time for payment.  Atlast the complainant has also issued a legal notice to the OP as document No.4 and inspite of the service of the notice the OP neither replied nor complied the demand without just reasons.  In this context, we are of the opinion that the OP service is not up to the mark which is nothing but deficiency in service much less unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we direct the OP to release the matured sum with interest at the rate of 12% by way of compensation from the date of maturity to till the date of realizationwith Rs.1,000/- of share amount in Nikhara Souharda Co-operative Limited., and litigaiton cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 is partly in affirmative.

15. Point No.3:  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant u/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund the amount of  Rs.4,13,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., in the form of compensation from the date of maturity to till the date of realization with Rs.3,000/- of share amount in Nikhara Souharda Co-operative Limited., andlitigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 15% p.a. after expiry of 60 days on Rs.4,13,000/- till final payment.
4. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^THday of SEPTEMBER, 2023)

List of documents produced by the complainant is marked as:-

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;