BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 4^th March 2015

PRESENT

       SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :  HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

       SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

CC.No.315/2014

(Admitted on 30.08.2014)

Smt.Honnamma,

W/o Veerappa Gowda,

Aged about 80 years,

Athimaru House,

Koyyur Post,

Belthangady Taluk, D.K.                 …… COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Sanjay. D)

     VERSUS

Nethravathi Finance & Investment

Corporation (R.),

Head Office: Sri Venkatramana,

Prasad Building,

Uppinangady, D.K.

Represented by

The Managing Partner,

K.Mahalinga Bhat,

S/o K.P. Subraya Bhat,

Now R/at, Mandasmitha,

Mallika Extension,
Kadri Kambla, Bejai,

Mangalore-04.                                  …. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Opposite Party: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant stated that Opposite party has been running a financial institution having its head office at Uppinangady and the Opposite Party has launched various deposits schemes offering attractive rates of interest on deposits.  The complainant having been attracted by the advertisements made, had invested in fixed deposits with the Opposite party. The particulars of the deposits are as under:-

The Opposite Party is duty bound to pay the above deposit on the date of maturity.  It is submitted that she had approached the Opposite Party to pay the amounts  due along with interest under the cash certificate on the date of maturity. But the Opposite Party sought some time to pay the same that he is in financial difficulty and will make arrangement to repay the fixed deposit.  It is submitted that on humanitarian ground the complainant waited for some time.  Even thereafter the amounts due under the above debts has not been paid by the Opposite Party in spite of repeated demands and all amicable sorts of settlement of the dispute have gone in vain. It is stated that the Opposite Party are bound to repay the deposit amount but failed to refund the same which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. 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 Party to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest at 10% per annum from 14.3.2002 till payment to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Inspite receive version notice Opposite Party not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence, we proceeded exparte as against Opposite Party and Postal Acknowledgement marked as Court Doc.No.1.

III.     1. In support of the complaint, Smt Honnamma – Complainant (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 & C2. Opposite Party placed exparte.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. 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): Affirmative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.       

REASONS

IV.     1.  POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):

          In the above complaint, the complainant (CW-1) filed affidavit on evidence supported by documents i.e. Ex.C1 Nethravathi Cash Certificate issued by the Opposite Party shows that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash certificate on 13.3.1998 with the Opposite party for the period of four years under the cash certificate No.2265. Under the above said receipt the Opposite Party has undertaken to repay the same on the date of maturity i.e. 14.3.2002 and the maturity value of Rs.40,000/-.   It is seen on record that, as per the promise made by the Opposite Party, they are bound to pay the said sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest in this case.

          However, it is the definite case of the complainant that, on the date of maturity the complainant had approached the opposite party on the given address, but the Complainant failed to contact the Opposite Party.  However, after filing this complaint the Complainant has taken paper publication against the Opposite Party in Hosadigantha Kannada Daily news paper.  Inspite of that the Opposite Party nor appeared nor represented the case, the entire evidence placed on record not contradicted nor controverted by the Opposite Party. Hence it requires no further proof.

However, we find that from the above evidence, it is proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite party inspite of taking the above said amount under the cash certificate failed to refund the said amount on the date of maturity till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Party is liable to refund the entire amount along with the interest in this case.  By considering the above aspect, we hereby directed the Opposite Party shall refund a sum of Rs.40,000/-  (Rupees Forty thousand only) i.e. maturity value along with interest from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization to the complainant and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the 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.

          In the result, we pass the following:     

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party shall refund a sum of Rs.40,000/-  (Rupees Forty thousand only) i.e. maturity value along with interest from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization to the complainant and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as 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 and file shall be consigned to record room.

 (Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 4^th day of March 2015)

                    PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Smt Honnamma – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 13/3/1998: Original Nethravathi Cash Certificate.

Ex C2:13/3/1998: Original Receipt.

COURT DOCUMENTS:

Doc No.1: Postal acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil -

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:       

- Nil -

Dated:  04-03-2015                                  PRESIDENT