Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/496/2005

T.Sudharsan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Park Town Benifit Funds - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2022

ORDER

                                                                Date of Complaint Filed: 16.06.2005

                                                                                                                            Date of Reservation     : 14.12.2021   

                                                                                                                            Date of Order              : 21.01.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

Present:                       Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                                      Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                 : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.496/2005

FRIDAY, THE 21^st  DAY OF JANUARY 2022

Mr.B.T. Sudharson,

34, Rangiah Street,

Choolai, Chennai – 600 112.                                                                                          .. Complainant.                                             

..Versus..

M/s PARK TOWN BENEFIT FUND LIMITED,

Represented by its,

MANAGING DIRECTOR cum CHAIRMAN,

1^st Floor, No.73 & 74, Arcot Road,

Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.                                                                              .. Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant    : K.S. Ganesh Babu

Counsel for the opposite party : T.K.S. Gandhi                                                                 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of complainant and we delivered the following.

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.43,520/- with interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.32,000/- from the date of complaint to till the date of realisation and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensationto the complainant along with costs of this complaint.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.   The opposite party has not submitted his proof affidavit and written arguments.

3.The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant has Re-deposited a sum of Rs.32,000/- on 30.06.2002 with the opposite party and for the same opposite party has paid interest for the said deposit for a period of one year. Thereafter towards part repayment of the matured amount of Rs.32,000/- the opposite party has issued its post-dated cheque No. 093026 dated 10.05.2005 for Rs.16,000/- drawn on the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Kodambakkam, Chennai and they had received the original FDR from the complainant. On 03.05.2005 the opposite party has sent a letter to the complainant and therein requested not to present the above-said cheque for clearance and contact them for collecting new Bank Cheques from them on 10.05.2005 and when the complainant contacted their office, they did not respond to the complainant and did not issue any new cheque. Hence the complainant has presented the cheque through his Bank and the above-said cheque was returned for the reasons account attached bar closed. The opposite party is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum to the complainant for the said amount from 30.06.2003 to till the date of making payments and as on date, there is a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards principal and a sum of Rs.11,520/- towards interest and total aggregating to a sum of Rs.43,520/- due and payable by the opposite party to the complainant. Thereafter complainant caused legal notice on 21.05.2005 to the opposite party demanding the above amount. Even after receiving the notice the opposite party is neither made any payment nor replied thereof. Hence this complaint is filed.

4.      Written Version of the Opposite party in Brief:-

        It is submitted that in the year 1997-1998 several financial companies and Nidhi Limited’s were established and offered several attractive schemes to the public in all over Tamilnadu and collected enormous amounts from the public and they have not repaid the amounts were demanded. By such unfair acts made by them, there was a panic among the depositors and came together and asked the opposite party to settle their claim in single payment. By taking advantage of the panic among the depositors the borrowers of the company stopped paying both principal and interest. When the company brings mortgage property for public auction the borrowers have approached the Courts and obtained a stay and thus prohibiting the company from recovering the dues from the borrowers. That any delayed payment is due to borrowers not paying amounts due by them. The borrowers filed suits before Civil Courts, obtained injunction restraining recovery amounts due. Hence the amounts could not be recovered. The opposite party adopts a strategy to distribute available collection to all depositors uniformly and indiscriminately thus rendering justice to all the depositors and the last depositor also should be paid his deposit. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.    The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.    Point No.1

        The complaint submits Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 documents. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 would reveal that the complainant has deposited Rs.32,000/- with the opposite party. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 would reveal that the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.60,000/- and also request not to present the same. Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 would reveal that the complainant issued notice to the opposite party and demanding the above amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the acknowledgement of the Notice by the opposite party. There is no merit in the Written Version of the opposite party. There is no specific denial by the opposite party in respect of the pleadings made in the complaint. Even the opposite party has not adduced evidence by way of filing his proof affidavit. Therefore we found that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on his part. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered.

7.      Point Nos 2 & 3:-    

          We have discussed and decided that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on his part hence the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.32,000/- along with interest  at  the  admitted 

rate of 18% per annum from 01.07.2003 to till the date of this order. Further the complainant has entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and the deficiency in service caused to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Accordingly, point Nos 2 & 3 are answered.

        In the result this complaint is allowed as prayed for. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.07.2003 to till the date of this order and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and the deficiency in service caused  to the complainant. Further it is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenditures.  The opposite party shall pay the above amounts within three months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the above accrued amounts along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realising the amounts.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  21^st  day of January  2022.

 

T.VINODHKUMAR                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

      MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	23.05.2002	Opposite party to complainant
Ex.A2	30.06.2002	Opposite party to complainant
Ex.A3	30.06.2002	Opposite party to complainant
Ex.A4	30.06.2002	Opposite party to complainant
Ex.A5	03.05.2005	Opposite party to complainant
Ex.A6	10.05.2005	Opposite party to complainant
Ex.A7	21.05.2005	Complainant’s counsel to opposite party
Ex.A8	25.05.2005	By Opposite party

List of documents on the side of the opposite party: NIL

 

    T.VINODHKUMAR                                                   R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

          MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT