Before the District CONSUMERS Forum: Kurnool
Present:Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri.R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday 6TH day of February, 2004
C.D.No.201/2003
S.Md.Saleem,
S/o S.Abdul Khader,
R/o H.No.11/76/34,
Aditya Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his Counsel
Sri.L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate
-Vs-
Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Represented by its Group Chairman,
K.S.Raju, 1/2/597/12,
Balmiki Nagar, Domalguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking an award directing the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the maturity value of fixed deposit receipt Nos.C.30900902440 and C.60900902441 dated 25-04-1997 along with contract rate of interest from the date of the maturity and Rs.10,000/- towards damages for the mental agony and costs of the case along with other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 25-04-1997 an amount of Rs.10,000/- ach was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party for a maturity value of Rs.25,000/- each to 25-04-2002 and in token of the said deposit the opposite party has issued F.D.R.Nos.C.60900602440 and C.60900902441. On maturity the complainant has sent the original F.D.R. receipts to the opposite party and they were acknowledged. Thereafter the opposite party kept quite and did not arrange the payment of the said mature amount inspite of repeated demands of the complainant and the said conduct of the opposite party amounting deficiency of service has caused mental agony and suffering and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal.
3. Inspite of the service of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party neither turned up to the proceedings nor made any contest to the complainant’s case dis-owning of its liability and remained exparte to the proceedings.
4. The complainant in support of his case relied upon the documenraty record marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his case and the documents.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in its defaultive conduct of non-payment of the matured amount and thereby his entitleness to the reliefs sought?
6. The Ex.A1 and Ex.A3, the attested Xerox copies of the F.D.R.Nos.C.60900902440 and C.60900902441 dated 25-04-1997 envisages the issued of their originals to the complainant on receipt of Rs.10,000/- under each for a period of 60 months with a stipulation for the payment of Rs.25,000/- under each of them on the date of their maturity i.e., on 25-04-2002 accruing the interest @ 20.11%. The Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 are letters of the opposite party dated 24-07-2002 addressed to the complainant acknowledging the receipt of the afore said F.D.Rs. of the complainant and also intimating of its approach already to the company Law Board for re-schedulement of the time frame for the clearance of the public deposits. The originals of the ex.A1 and Ex.A3 were said to have been surrendered to the opposite party by the complainant on their maturity for the payment. Their receipt was acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex.A2 and Ex.A4. Thus the facts in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 in the absence of any contra material is conclusively establishing the privy of the complainant with the opposite party on account of he said deposit in Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 and the liability of the opposite party to fulfil the commitment stipulated therein as to the payment of the matured amount as stipulated in the said fixed deposits.
7. When a company or a Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and the depositor is consumer as per the decision of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Rajee -Vs- among Industries and another reported in 1993 CPR Page 345.
8. The Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the Sanchayani Saving Investment (India) Limited -Vs- Vatsala Baba Saheb Gaikevad reported in 2003 (1) CPJ 260 holds the Financial Institutions deficiency in its service in not honouraing the commitment, when amount under various deposits with accrued benefits, are not released to the depositors. In the light of the above two decisions the conduct of the opposite party in not paying the mature amount to the complainant as stipulated under the Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 is amounting to a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party enabling the complainant to seek his redresssal under the provisions of the C.P. Act.
9. The Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 acknowledgement letters of the opposite party except acknowledging the receipt of the F.D.Rs. of the complainant and its approach to the Company Law Board for a re-schedulement of the time frame for the clearance of the public deposits did not made any progress towards the payment of the mature amounts of the complainant’s F.D.Rs. which matured on 25-04-2002. In the absence of any endeavour of the opposite party either for making any payment of for the re-schedulement of any time frame for the payment of the public deposits what appears is that the opposite party in post-phoning its liability on some pretext or other.
10. Further, as per the decision of the Honourable A.P. High Court in the Prudential Capital Market, Calcutta -Vs- The State of A.P. Department of Law and others reported in 2000 (5) Alt Page 465 the provisions of the R.B.I. Act or the Companies Act do not either expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act from entertaining applications by the depositors raising the Consumer Disputes Claiming the re-payment of the deposit made from non Banking Finance Company as the remedy under the C.P. Act is an additional remedy and not in derivation of the remedy available to approach the Company Law Board under the provisions of the R.B.I. Act the intendment of which is to protect the man where the remedy under Ordinary Law is illusory. Therefore the Depositor may approach either the Consumers Forum or the Company Law Board and hence the remedy available under the C.P. Act seems to be not aken away either by the R.B.I. Act or by the Companies Act. As the above remedy is available to the Depositor and not to the non Banking Financing Company there appears no justifiable excuse in the conduct of the opposite party in not repaying the matured amount to the complainant taking shelter under Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 and not bothering thereafter. Hence in the circumstances of the case of the conduct of the opposite party in not complying under the Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 making any endeavour for re-schedulement of time frame for clearance or of the public deposits so far also exposing the deficient conduct of the opposite party towards the obligation of the re-payment of the matured amount to the complainant. Therefore, there appears every justification to the complainant in approaching the Forum seeking the reliefs under the C.P. Act for realization of the due amounts from the opposite party arising out the deficient service conduct of the opposite party to the complainant.
11. Even though the complainant has made out his cause of action against the opposite party the further point remaining for the consideration is to what reliefs the complaint is justified in the exigencies of the case for being ordered against the opposite party.
12. No stipulation or the condition appears in the documentary record adduced by the complainant obligating the opposite party to pay the contractual rate of interest to the matured amount remain overdue as the stipulation in the Ex.a1 and Ex.A3 says interest will cease on the maturity of the deposit unless the contract for renewal of the deposit is made a for night before due date along with the fresh application form. Hence there appears no justification in the claim of the complainant for the contractual rate of interest of @ 20.11% from the date of the maturity till realization of the said amount. But as the opposite party as with held the maturity amount which if would have been paid to the complainant at its due date would have earned interest on deposit with Bank. Hence the complainant shall be entitled to the Bank rate of interest at 9% per annum on the mature amount for the overdue period. The complainant is claiming an amount Rs.1,000/- towards the costs and the mental agony which appears to be justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
13. Hence, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the mature amount of Rs.25,000/- under each deposit with 9% interest from the date of the maturity along with Rs.1,000/- towards the mental agony and costs, within a month of the receipt of this order, in default the opposite party shall be liable to pay awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of the default till realization of the entire amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 6th day of February, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Fixed deposit bond date d 25-04-1997 under deposit No.C60900902440.
Ex.A2 Acknowledgement dated 23-07-2002 given by opposite party.
Ex.A3 Fixed deposit bond dated 25-04-1997 under deposit receipt No.C60900902441.
Ex.A4 Acknowledgement dated 23-07-2002 given by opposite party.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10)
of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
