D.O.F : 18/06/2022
D.O.O : 09/08/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.127/2022
Dated this, the 9th day of August 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Anjana
R/at Makkakote House
Ravaneshwar P O
Pallikara via, Kasaragod.
(Adv: Ummu Aima C A) : Complainant
And
Vrinda Rajesh
W/o Rajesh (L)
Vaishnavan House
Kudamaloor P O
Aymanam Village, Kottayam. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The opposite parties are doing marketing business. They approached the complainant for deposit and claimed that their business is fully covered by the guidelines of statutory authorities. Further they claimed that the objective of the opposite party company is other retail trade of new goods in specialized stores. The opposite party No. 2 and Kunhi Chandu Melath Nair are the directors of opposite party No. 1 company who approached the complainant for financial support to subscribe their deposit scheme and they promised a compounding interest of 13-15% per annum continuously for a period of 66 months on her deposits. The opposite parties had assured the complainant that the company is authorized to receive the same by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) having pan-India operations and the entire business was legal. Thus the opposite parties induced the complainant and made her believe that her deposit would yield substantial profit within 66 months from the date of deposit. The opposite parties further claimed that they are a leading business entity in South India and thus gained the confidence of the complainant. Thus the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 15,835/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand Eight hundred and Thirty Five only) for a period of 66 months as per agreement dated 12/8/2013, and Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) for a period of 66 months as per agreement dated 30/10/2013, Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for a period of 66 months as per agreement dated 27/3/2014, Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) for a period of 66 months as per an agreement dated 29/5/2017. In the agreement, it was mentioned as loan instead of deposits by abusing their dominant position. The investment commenced on 28/02/2013 and finally 27/05/2017 respectively. The maturity period of the said scheme was for a period of 66 months. During this time various cases were registered against the directors of opposite party company for allegedly cheating the public on the promise of high returns on investments and duping them of about crores of rupees and the company became dysfunctional. The directors were connived to each other to dupe the complainant and made her to part with the hard earned money. Even though the complainant demanded refund of the amount so many times, the opposite parties failed to repay the amount to the complainant. The cause of action of the complaint arose on the date on 14/10/2020 at Kasaragod within the jurisdiction of this commission. There is a delay of 1313 days in filing the complaint as the complainant approached the opposite parties many times for the resolution of her grievance and opposite parties postponed the same under one or other pretax. Believing the assurance of opposite parties, the complainant waited for such a long period, the reason stated for delay is reasonable. The complainant is seeking directions against opposite parties to refund the deposited amount with 10% interest and Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as the compensation to the complainant with cost of proceedings.
Notice of opposite parties returned, stating left. Thereafter the complainant furnished fresh address of opposite parties. Notice of opposite party No.2 returned as unclaimed. Name called absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A4. The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all questions can be discussed together. The case of the complainant is that, the directors of opposite party No.1 company approached the complainant for deposit in their company. Believing their assurances, the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 4,95,835/- in various periods from 12/8/2013 to 29/05/2017 for a period of 66 months. On maturity of the period, the opposite parties failed to refund the deposited amount with interest. In the meantime, many cases registered against opposite parties for cheating the public on promise of high returns on investments and thus duping them of about crores of rupees made the company dysfunctional. Even though the directors (Opposite party No.2) offered her to refund the FD amount, it is not refunded so far. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 to A4 to prove his allegations. Ext. A1 is the agreement entered into by the complainant and opposite party on 12/8/2013, Ext. A2 is the agreement dated 27/03/2014, Ext. A3 is the agreement dated 30/10/2013, Ext. A4 is the agreement dated 29/5/2017. Ext. A1 to A4 proves that the allegation made by the complainant against opposite parties are true. But opposite parties failed to act upon as per the agreement. Non refund of the amount on maturity made the complainant huge loss and mental agony. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the opposite parties are bound to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant due to their deficiency in service. There is a delay of 1313 days in filing the complaint as the complainant approached the opposite parties many times for the resolution of her grievance and opposite parties postponed the same under one or other pretax. Believing the assurance of opposite parties, the complainant waited for such a long period, the reason stated for delay is reasonable.
The prayer of the complainant is to refund Rs. 4,95,835/- with 10% interest with Rs. 10,00,000/- compensation and cost.
We carefully gone through the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and the compensation sought by the complainant is excessive and without any documentary evidence. Hence we holds that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
Hence, the complaint is allowed directing opposite parties to refund Rs. 4,95,835/- (Rupees Four lakhs Ninety Five thousand Eight hundred and Thirty Five only) with 9% interest from the date of deposit till payment along with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Agreement dated 12/08/2013
A2 – Agreement dated 27/03/2014
A3 – Agreement dated 30/10/2013
A4 – Agreement dated 29/5/2017
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
