A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONAT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 270/2007 against C.C. 77/2005, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
1. Godavari Valley Industrial Development Trust (Regd)
H. No. 6-3-88, Jagtial-505 327
Karimnagar
Rep. by its Trustee P. Venkateswarlu
2. Kasuganti Sudhakara Rao
S/o. Laxminarsimha Rao,
Age: 60 years, 7-1-122,
Near Old Bus-stand, Jagitial
Karimnagar Dist.
3. P. Venkateswarlu
S/o. Poshetti, H.No. 7-5-137
Jagtial, Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 to 3.
And
1. Nimmala Vijaya
W/o. Chandra Prakash
Age: 30 years
R/o. 7-2-208, Pochammawada
Jagtial, Karimnagar Dist *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. Regunda Sathyanarayana
S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 59 years
Trustee of M/s. G.V.L.D. Trust
H.No. 6-4-201, Pochammawada
Jagtial-505 327, Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 4.
F.A. 271/2007 against C.C. 78/2005, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
1. Godavari Valley Industrial Development Trust (Regd)
H. No. 6-3-88, Jagtial-505 327
Karimnagar
Rep. by its Trustee P. Venkateswarlu
2. Kasuganti Sudhakara Rao
S/o. Laxminarsimha Rao,
Age: 60 years, 7-1-122,
Near Old Bus-stand, Jagitial
Karimnagar Dist.
3. P. Venkateswarlu
S/o. Poshetti, H.No. 7-5-137
Jagtial, Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 to 3.
And
1. Nimmala Prakash @ Chandra Prakash
S/o. Rajaiah.
R/o. 7-2-208, Pochammawada
Jagtial, Karimnagar Dist *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. Regunda Sathyanarayana
S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 59 years
Trustee of M/s. G.V.L.D. Trust
H.No. 6-4-201, Pochammawada
Jagtial-505 327, Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 4.
F.A. 272/2007 against C.C. 79/2005, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
1. Godavari Valley Industrial Development Trust (Regd)
H. No. 6-3-88, Jagtial-505 327
Karimnagar
Rep. by its Trustee P. Venkateswarlu
2. Kasuganti Sudhakara Rao
S/o. Laxminarsimha Rao,
Age: 60 years, 7-1-122,
Near Old Bus-stand, Jagitial
Karimnagar Dist.
3. P. Venkateswarlu
S/o. Poshetti, H.No. 7-5-137
Jagtial, Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 to 3.
And
1. Nimmala Naresh @ Naresh Kumar
S/o. Chandra Prakash
R/o. 7-2-208, Pochammawada
Jagtial, Karimnagar Dist *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2. Regunda Sathyanarayana
S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 59 years
Trustee of M/s. G.V.L.D. Trust
H.No. 6-4-201, Pochammawada
Jagtial-505 327, Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 4.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. D. Krishna Murthy
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. P. Raja Sripathi Rao.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to refund Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) These three appeals arise against the order of the Dist. Forum in three complaints filed by husband, wife and their son claiming the amounts covered under the fixed deposit receipts. Though separate orders were passed in an identical facts, we are of the opinion that all the three appeals which arise from the said orders could be conveniently disposed of by a common order for which both parties agreed.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that opposite parties 2 to 4 constituted first appellant trust by name Godavari Vally Industrial Development Trust and introduced fixed deposit receipt (FDR) scheme attracting the general public to deposit certain amounts and undertaking to refund the same with interest. The wife and husband deposited Rs. 14,000/- each on 30.12.1997 while their son deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 20.12.1996. When they could know that the appellants had closed the scheme in the middle they approached them on 20.12.2003 for which they agreed to pay on 25.6.2004. However, when they claimed the amount they did not pay and on that they filed the complaint for recovery of the amount together with interest, compensation and costs.
4) The appellants resisted the case. The father of the complainant in C.D. No. 78/2005 and 79/2005 is a government employee. He already claimed the amount under C.C. Nos 252, 254, 255, 257 and 258/2003 amounting to Rs. 3,84,000/- including the amount now claimed. The Government of India by Gazette Dt. 9.1.1997 directed that all non-corporate financial institutions to repay the deposits immediately after the maturity or after two years from 9.1.1997. Accordingly it had paid the amounts. There were no pending deposits which require repayment. Since two years time was granted the complainants should have demanded for repayment before 9.1.1999 or approached the Dist. Forum not latter than 9.1.2001. They cannot be treated as deposits kept with the trust. They lent amount to it. The Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as the complainants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. Sri B. Dharmaiah father of the complainant in C.D. Nos. 77 to 79/2005 was former Accountant in Sri Saraswathi Shishumandir, Jagtial. He was the subscriber and creator of the FDRs mentioned in C.D. Nos. 250/2003 to 258/2003. He was the agent of the trust and received considerable commissions. He took initiative to inform the depositors of the trust to claim repayment of deposits whereby there was no possibility of not claiming the deposits by the complainants. In the receipts issued there was no mention of interest. There was no reason why they had to wait for six years to claim the amount. When they were complainants in C.C. Nos. 250/2003 to 258/2003 there was no reason why they did not mention these FDRs. The complaints were barred by limitation. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5) The complainants in proof of their case filed their affidavit evidence and got FDRS marked as Exs. A1. Opposite Parties equally filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants had deposited the amounts with the appellants which in turn issued the FDRs. The appellants did not prove that they had repaid the amount covered under these FDRs in the earlier complaints filed by them. Therefore it directed them to pay the amount covered under the FDRs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs 1,000/- each.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties preferred the appeals contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the amount was paid through her father Sri Dharmaiah. For the very same relief they filed C.D. Nos. 250/2003 to 258/2003 and obtained relief. Had the claims been genuine they would not have waited till 2005. At any rate by 9.1.1999 the scheme was closed, and it could not have survived till filing the complaints. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law ?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had deposited the amounts with the appellant trust viz., Rs. 14,000/- each on 30.12.1997 and Rs. 50,000/- on 20.12.1996 under Ex. A1. It is important to note that under the FDRs there was no mention as to the date when it would be repaid. In other words, no date of maturity was made a mention. The complainants according to them when they demanded the amount, the appellants promised that they would pay on 25. 6. 2004. When the amounts were not paid they filed the complaints on 31.3.2005. The defences of the trust are that i) the complainants having filed the earlier complaints seeking very same relief are estopped from claiming the very same amount ii) the claims were barred by limitation. Though the trust had taken the contention that the very same relief was made in C.D. 250/2003 to 258/2003 they did not file any document in order to prove the said fact. They could have at least filed copies of the complaints or orders passed therein to see whether the complainants had already filed the complaints and obtained relief. Except taking the plea to that effect, it was not proved.
10) In regard to limitation as we have earlier pointed out no date for refund of amount was made a mention in the FDRs. It is the case of the trust that the Government of India by Gazette Dt. 9.1.1997 directed that all non-corporate financial institutions to repay the deposits immediately after the maturity or after two years from 9.1.1997 and accordingly they repaid before 9.1.1999. Since the payments were made long back, they did not have documents to prove it. Invoking the said notification the trust alleges that it had paid the amounts covered under the FDRs. It was the bounden duty of the trust to prove the factum of payment either by filing receipts or the account maintained by it. It is a registered trust. Undoubtedly there would be evidence to prove payment of amounts. The complainants alleged that they have claimed the amounts in December, 2003, however the trust had agreed to pay in June, 2004 and the trust having failed to pay the amounts they filed the complaints for recovery of the amount covered under the FDRs. We may state herein that the claim for recovery of the deposits would not be barred by limitation as the limitation for recovery of deposits was three years from the date when the demand was made as per Article 22 of the Limitation Act. Assuming without admitting that there was no proof of demand, the fact remains that the amount was deposited with a trust. Section 10 of the Limitation Act would apply where there is no limitation, as the trustees ought to have paid the amount covered under the FDRs, within the period mentioned under the Limitation Act. In the light of the fact that the appellant is a trust, Section 10 of the Limitation Act would apply. The very complaints can be construed as demands by them. We have closely perused the entire material in the case and we are of the opinion that the trustees having taken the deposits are liable to repay the amounts covered under the FDRs. We do not see any error in appreciation of evidence or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeals are dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/- one set. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 06. 04. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
