Complaint filed on: 28-12-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 23-06-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.86/2020 to CC.No.89/2020

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainants: -

1. CC.No.86/2020

Prof. V.Ramamurthy

Hirehalli post,

Tumakuru district

Karnataka-572168

2. CC.No.87/2020

Smt. B.S.Varalakshmi

W/o Prof. V.Ramamurthy

Hirehalli post,

Tumakuru district

Karnataka-572168

3. CC.No.88/2020

Ms.Yashoda Ramamurthy

D/o Prof. V.Ramamurthy

Hirehalli post,

Tumakuru district

Karnataka-572168

4. CC.No.89/2020

Shri H.V.Bettaiah

S/o Veerabhadraiah

Hirehalli post,

Tumakuru district

Karnataka-572168

(In person)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Shri Ramesh Chandra

Executive Chairman,

Unitech Limited, Unitech house, L Block South city, Gurgaon-122001

2. The Regional Manager

Unitech Limited, Jyothi Complex, 134/1,

Bagawan Mahaver Road,

Bengaluru-560001

(OP Nos.1 and 2-Exparte)       

COMMON ORDER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER

These complaints are filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the Opposite parties [hereinafter referred to as the OPs] to repay the deposit amount with cumulative interest @ 15% compounded monthly till the date of repayment of deposit amount together with litigation cost of Rs.6,000-00 in each case and Rs.20,000-00 as financial hardship and mental agony.

2. Since the OP No.1 and 2 in all the cases are one and the same. Further the complainant in CC.No.86/2020 is the husband of complainant in CC.No.87/2020 and father of complainant in CC.No.88/2020. The complainant in CC.No.89/2020 is different and stranger to the family of complaints in CC.No86to88/2020. The reliefs claimed by the complainants in all these cases are similar so in order to avoid repetition of facts and law hence, this common order.   

3. The complainant in CC.No.86/2020 had deposited Rs.75,000-00 under receipt No.1250731 on 9-12-2013 and its maturity date was 9-12-2016 for a sum of Rs.1,08,913-00. The complainant in CC.No.87/2020 had kept Rs.50,000-00 under receipt No.1240210 on 25-9-2013, Rs.75,000-00 under receipt No.1245597 on 6-11-2013 and Rs.90,000-00 under receipt No.1248803 on 9-1-2014. The maturity date of these deposits were on 25-9-2016, 16-11-2016, 9-1-2017 and maturity amount is Rs.72,609-00, Rs.1,08,913-00 and Rs.1,30,695-00 respectively. The complainant in CC.No.88/2020 had deposited Rs.50,000-00 under receipt No.1240207 on 25-9-2013 and its maturity date was 25-9-2016 for a sum of Rs.72,609-00. And also deposited Rs.75,000-00 on 9-12-2013 under receipt No.1247784 and its maturity date was 9-12-2016 for a sum of Rs.1,08,913-00. The complainant in CC.No.89/2020 had deposited Rs.50,000-00 under receipt No.1242710 on 18-10-2013 and its maturity date was on 18-10-2016 for a sum of Rs.72,609-00. The complainants have approached the OPs for return of fixed deposit amount with interest i.e. maturity amount and when it failed to pay the amount the complainants have wrote letters dated 14-1-2019 and 9-4-2019 calling upon the OPs to pay maturity amount but the OPs have failed to comply or gave reply hence, these complaints.

4. The OP Nos.1 and 2 inspite of the service of notice they were placed exparte. The complainants filed their affidavit evidence and documents marked as Exs-P1 to P5 in all the cases.  

          5. We have heard the oral arguments of complainants and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainants prove that the OPs have flagrantly violated the terms and conditions governing the fixed deposit scheme?

2)      Are complainants entitled to the reliefs sought for?

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative

Point No.2: In the negative for the below;

REASONS

          7. Point No.1 to 2:  The complainants submitted that the OPs have been accepting the deposit from Indian Nationals under scheme-B [cumulative deposits] from the complainants. The complainant in CC.No.86/2020 was holding one fixed deposit, in CC.No.87/2020 was holding three fixed deposits, in CC.No.88/2020 was holding two fixed deposits and in CC.No.89/2020 was holding one fixed deposit of OPs under scheme B [cumulative deposits] for three years.  

          8. The complainants in their affidavit evidence reiterated the averments of complaints. The complainants have produced Ex.P1 statements issued by the Karnataka Bank in CC.No.86/2020, CC.No.88/2020, CC.No.89/2020 and HDFC bank in CC.No.87/2020. On perusal of  Ex.P1 statements these indicate that the complainants have paid the amount to OPs through cheque as below table:

          9. The complainants submitted that the OPs have been accepting deposits from Indian Nationals under Scheme B [cumulative deposits] including complainants. But the complainants in CC.No.86/2020 to CC.No.89/2020 have not produced any documents/certificates to prove the acceptance made by the OPs that said amounts were deposited in their financial institutions.

10. Further the complainants have submitted in their complainants and affidavit as fixed deposit receipt numbers, acceptance date, folio number, maturity date and maturity amount as below table:

But the complainants have failed to produce the FD certificates/receipts to prove the above particulars.

          11. The complainants have produced Ex-P2 Form No.8 Application U/s 74 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 said to be filed before the Hon’ble Company Law Board at New Delhi, Bench New Delhi and also produced Exs-P3 to P5 letters written to OPs for repayment of matured fixed deposit with interest. It is not mentioned in Ex.P-2 that the present complainants have deposited or invested the amount in their financial institution as such Ex.P2 is not helpful to the complainants.

          12. On perusal of Ex-P1 the said amounts are paid to OPs through cheque. But Ex-P1 bank account statements produced by the complainants are not sufficient to believe that the complainants have invested/deposited the money under scheme-B (cumulative deposits]. It cannot be believed that without producing documents by the complainants that those amounts/payments should have kept as fixed deposits in the OPs institution.

          13. Further the complainants submitted in the complaints that duly signed fixed deposit receipts for repayment was handed over to the OP Regional Manager, Bengaluru on 9^th December, 2016 vide Ex-P3 letter in this regard. On perusal of Ex-P3 it is only letter written by the complainants to OPs as they handed over the duly signed fixed deposit receipts for repayment to OP without any acknowledgement or any receipt bearing seal or signature by the OPs. Without any documents, the complainants stand cannot be considered as they have kept the amount in fixed deposit under scheme-B [cumulative deposit] in OPs institution. Hence, Exs-P2, 4 and 5 are not worthy for consideration. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaints are dismissed without cost.

Place the original order in CC.No.86/2020 and copy of order in CC.No.87/2020 to 89/2020.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd  day of June, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT