View 641 Cases Against Muthoot Finance
View 30724 Cases Against Finance
Zorawar Singh filed a consumer case on 18 Oct 2017 against Muthoot Finance Limited in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/442/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Nov 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH
======
Consumer Complaint No | : | 442 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 31.05.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 18.10.2017 |
1] Zorawar Singh s/o Late Mukand Singh, aged 78 years, R/o 3132, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.
2] Prem Lata w/o Zorawar Singh, aged 74 years, r/o 3132, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.
…..Complainants
Muthoot Finance Limited through its Director, WSCO No.455-456, Second Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
….. Opposite Party
SH.RAVINDER SINGH MEMBER
Argued by: Sh.N.S.Jagdeva, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Shashank Bhandari, Adv. for OP
PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER
The case of the complainant briefly is that he purchased Debentures from Opposite Party Company for Rs.5,35,000/- on 7th & 9th Feb., 2014 (Ann.C-1 & C-2). It is averred that the tenure of the Debentures were three years and the rate of interest was 12.5% p.a. It is also averred that interest for the first year was duly paid by the Opposite Parties on due date i.e. 7.2.2015 & 9.2.2015, but the interest payable for the second year due on 7.2.2016 & 9.2.2016 amounting to Rs.66,875/- was not paid by the Opposite Party. It is further averred that on the maturity date i.e. 7.2.2017 & 9.2.2017 the OPs paid the interest amount as well as purchase price of the debenture, but did not paid the interest on the delayed payment of one year interest. It is submitted that the interest of Rs.66,875/- which was required to be paid on 7.2.2016 & 9.2.2016 had infact been paid on 7.2.2017 & 9.2.2017, thus, he is entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.66,875/- illegally retained by the Opposite Party for full one year and this way, the complainant suffered monetary loss of Rs.8359/-. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of the Opposite Party and demanded the amount, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
2] The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as far as the payment of interest for the year 2016 is concerned, the said interest had duly accrued, but for the purpose of releasing/disbursing the said interest amount, it was the incumbent duty of the complainant to have either visited the concerned Branch Office of Opposite Party or in the alternative to have provided their complete Bank Account Details, in which the Opposite Party could have credited/deposited the said interest amount. It is stated that the complainant neither visited the concerned branch office of Opposite Party to collect the interest amount nor they provided their bank details, so as to enable the Opposite Party to deposit/credit the accrued interest amount in such bank account. It is also submitted that no further amount is either due or payable by the Opposite Party to the complainant and the complainant had already received complete amount of the debentures including up-to-date interest in Feb., 2017. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.
4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.
6] The complainant has invested a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- on purchase of Debentures on 7.2.2014 and 9.2.2014 with maturity period of 3 years. The annual interest on Debenture payable on 7.9.2015 on Rs.1.50 lacs and on 9.2.2015 on Rs.3,85,000/-, was paid to the complainant by the Opposite Party, but the interest for the second year accrued on the investment of Rs.5,35,000/- which was payable on 7.2.2016 and 9.2.2016 not paid to the complainant. The Opposite Party admittedly has not made the payment of interest, but made the payment of said interest only on final maturity of debentures i.e. on 7.2.2017 and 9.2.2017. The Opposite Party has taken the plea that the interest for the second year was not paid because the complainant himself has not come forward to the Office of Opposite Party for collecting the amount of interest on the Debenture for the second year.
7] The contentions raised by the Opposite Party are illegal and inconvincible. The Opposite Party should have made the payment of interest for the second year to the complainant by way of Draft or Banker’s Cheque by forwarding the same through courier or postal service at his home address. The retention of amount as accrued interest for one year is not justified. Obviously the Opposite Party suffers from deficiency in their service and liable to be penalized for their misdemeanor.
8] Keeping into view the facts under consideration, the complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.8359/- (accrued on delayed payment of interest of Rs.66,875/-) to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
If the order is not complied with by the Opposite Party within the above stipulated period, then the Opposite Party shall have to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
18th October, 2017
Sd/-
(RAJAN DEWAN)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PRITI MALHOTRA)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(RAVINDER SINGH)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.