BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31ST May 2012
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.66/2012
(Admitted on 25.02.2012)
Mr.Gopinath Rai,
S/o Late B.Krishna Rai,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at Ramasadana,
Rayee Village & Post,
Bantawwal Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Dayananda Rai.K.)
VERSUS
SBA Gold International (R),
Office at Sri. Krishna Compound,
George Martis Road,
Kadri-Mangalore-2,
Represented by its authorized signatory
Harikumar Bhat,
Pallthadka House, Pallathadka Village,
Muddumanttappa Hall,
Kasaragod. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(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 against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, the opposite party had approached the complainant and requested the complainant to invest a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in SBA Gold International (R) and at that time the opposite party has promised that the said investment will mature after the period of 12 months and also assured that the complainant will get doubt amount on the bond of investment after the matured period. By believing the Opposite party the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and received the aforesaid amount and issued a bond of investment for fixed term of 12 months on 14.11.2010. When the matter stood thus, the complainant demanded the aforesaid amount after fixed term of 12 months for repayment, but opposite party had not refunded the aforesaid amount and postpone the same in one way or other. On 14.11.2011 to discharge the aforesaid original bond investment amount the Opposite Party issued a cheque dated 14.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Andra Bank, Mangalore Branch. It is stated that, on believing the above said cheque the complainant presented the same for encashment but the same has been returned dishonoured by the aforesaid bank on the ground that ‘Funds Insufficient’. Thereafter the complainant issued a lawyers notice dated 26.12.2011 inspite of that the opposite party not refunded the amount. Feeling aggrieved by the above, 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 refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid to opposite party with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of payment i.e. on 14.11.2010 till the date of recovery along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party. The acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Sri. Gopinath Rai (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 to C4 were produced by the complainant as listed in annexure.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the complainant 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 order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also produced Ex.C1 to C4. On perusal of the documents as well as the affidavit produced by the complainant shows that the Ex.C1 i.e. bond dated 14.11.2010 issued by the SBA Gold International [R] original copy shows that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the Opposite Party on 14.11.2010 at Mangalore with the Opposite Party as refundable investment towards precious metals for fixed term of 12 months. The above said bond was signed by the authorized signatory of the opposite party at Mangalore. And the Ex.C2 is the cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 14.11.2010 issued by the authorized signatory of the opposite party drawn on Andra Bank shows that the above said cheque has been issued by the opposite party towards the payment of the aforesaid bond amount. The Ex.C3 is the memo issued by the Andra Bank dated 12.12.2011 shows the cheque issued by the opposite party bearing Acount No.086011100000098 has been returned ‘INSUFFICIENT FUND’. The Ex.C4 is the office copy of the Lawyers notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite party called upon to pay the aforesaid bond amount. On perusing of the above document available on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the opposite party received Rs.5,00,000/- in SBA Gold International [R] and issued a bond of investment for fixed term of 12 months on 14.11.2010 and promised to repay the aforesaid amount after period of 12 months. But in the instant case, the Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice by RPAD not bothered to appear before this FORA till this date. Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the opposite party. The entire evidence produced by the complainant are not contradicted or controverted by the opposite party which requires no further proof.
In the instant case, we satisfied that the complainant invest his hard earned money under the above said bond the opposite party is duty bound to returned the above said amount after the date of maturity but the opposite party inspite of expiry of the matured date not refunded bond amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Under the above circumstances, we direct the opposite party to refund the entire bond amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment and also pay Rs.2,000/- 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 i.e. SBA GOLD INTERNATIONS [R], represented by its authorized signatory is hereby directed pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of May 2012)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Gopinath Rai. -Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 14.11.2010: Bond issued by SBA Gold International [R]
Ex C2 – 14.11.2011: Cheque bearing No.636677 drawn on Andra Bank, Hampankatta, Mangalore.
Ex C3 – 12.12.2011: Memo issued by the Bank.
Ex C4 – 26.12.2011: Lawyers notice issued by the complainant.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
-Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
-Nil -
Dated:31-05-2012 PRESIDENT
