Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by org. opponent against whom the complaint bearing No.216/2003 was filed by Shri Satish Madhav Mhaskar resident of Miraj. Said complaint was decided against the opponent on 21/11/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli. While allowing the complaint partly, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum simply directed the opponent/Company to refund amount of `4,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12.5% p.a. from 31/01/1997 and also to pay `300/- as costs. This order has been taken exception of by filing this appeal.
2. The facts involved in this complaint lie in narrow compass.
Respondent was the complainant who had kept deposit of `4,000/- with the appellant/Kirloskar Investments & Finance Ltd. in the FDR. The maturity date was 30/01/2000. After the date of maturity, respondent herein asked for return of said amount with interest. However, complainant was simply given a cheque of `3,200/- on 14/08/2002, but he has not given `800/- plus interest on the deposit amount as per terms of agreement. Hence, he filed consumer complaint.
3. Opponent filed written version and admitted that the complainant had deposited an amount of `4,000/- with it and they could not refund the said amount with interest. The opponent-Company pleaded that it had Cardholder Scheme and it has been decided that every deposits would be refunded after 2007. The opponent-Company pleaded that the complainant was given first installment of `800/- and second installment of `3,200/-. The opponent-Company was also facing proceedings before the Company Law Board at Chennai filed by 900 depositors. When this is so, the Company pleaded that the consumer complaint as filed before it is not tenable in law and therefore, it pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs. However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum disallowed the contention of the opponent-Company and directed it to refund the amount of `4,000/- with interest @ 12.5% p.a. from 31/01/1997 till realisation of entire amount and also directed to pay cost of `300/-. Aggrieved by this order, the org. opponent has filed this appeal.
4. We had issued notices to both the parties on 07/08/2011, but none has appeared for hearing of this appeal.
5. We perused the impugned order and documents placed on record and we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directing refund of `4,000/- with interest thereon is appearing to be just, proper and sustainable in law. We find no merit in the appeal preferred by appellant-Company. Hence, we pass following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 14th September 2011.
