Date of filing:26.7.2013
Date of Disposal:11.3.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.
C.C.No.142 OF 2013.
Between :
Akunuri Venkata Bharathi, W/o Venkata Subba Rao, Hindu, 55 years, R/o Kundavari Kandrika, NSC Bose Nagar, Vijayawada.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Sri Anjali Finance Corporation, V.M.C. Complex, 2nd Floor, Near Kothavanthena Bus Stop, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 2.
2. Annabattula Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Subba Rao, Managing Partner, Sri Anjali Finance Corporation, Door No.23-33-3, (Pent House), Sri Anjali Towers, Near Amali English Medium School, Mutyalampadu, Satyannarayanapuram, Vijayawada.
3. Katuri Venkata Murali Krishna, S/o Ravindra Rao, Partner Sri Anjali Finance Corporation, Door No.23-33-3 (Ground Floor), Sri Anjali Towers, Near Amali English Medium School, Mutyalampadu, Satyannarayanapuram, Vijayawada.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 24.2.2014 in the presence of Sri T.Mallikarjuna Rao, Counsel for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.74,000/- towards two fixed deposit receipts amount with interest at 24% p.a on the fixed deposit amount till the date of realization, for costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief case of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party is the Managing Partner and the 3rd opposite party is the partner of 1st opposite party firm. The complainant basing on the inducement made by the opposite parties 2 and 3 has deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 16.2.2002 and Rs.10,000/- on 28.6.2002 in the 1st opposite party firm for a period of forty months and the opposite parties 2 and 3 in the capacity of Managing Partner and Partner issued deposit receipts for the said deposit amounts. It is further submitted that even after completion of maturity period of the above two fixed deposits, the opposite parties did not choose to repay the maturity amount in spite of several demands made by the complainant. The opposite parties have been postponing the payment on some pretext or the other and the acts of opposite parties show the deficiency in service on their part. The complainant also got issued a notice dt.24.6.2013 to the opposite parties demanding the payment of maturity amount, but the opposite parties refused to receive the notices. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to opposite parties. The notice of 2nd opposite party returned with an endorsement “intimation”. The notices of opposite parties 1 and 3 returned. As such the matter is being posted from time to time for want of correct address of opposite parties 1 and 3 and on 11.11.2013 the complainant filed a memo with correct addresses. As such again notices were sent to them. The notice of 1st opposite party returned with an endorsement that “intimation delivered” and the notice of 3rd opposite party returned with an endorsement that “no such addressee in the door number”. As such the service of 1st opposite party is held sufficient. While so, the complainant filed a petition for service of notice on 3rd opposite party by way of substitute service and the same is allowed. A notice was published in Praja Sakthi Daily and the service of notice held sufficient. As such the opposite parties 1 to 3 remained absent.
3. The complainant has filed her affidavit reiterating the material averments made in the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. None were examined on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 as they remained absent.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not paying the maturity amount under the two fixed deposit receipts?
ii) If so is the complainant entitled for the releifs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1:-
6. A perusal of record discloses that the complainant has subscribed for two Fixed Deposits of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. on 16.2.2002 and 28.6.2002. Evidencing the deposit of amount, the 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party being Managing Partner and Partner of 1st opposite party firm issued Fixed Deposit Receipts. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 fixed deposit receipts discloses the same. Further perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 receipts shows the date of maturity as 16.4.2005 and 28.10.2005 and rate of interest as 24%. As such the complainant has proved the factum of deposit of amount with the 1st opposite party. The main grievance of the complainant is that even after the maturity period, the opposite parties have not chosen to pay the maturity amount in spite of repeated demands made by her and even after issuance of legal notice under Ex.A3. Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 disclose that the notices sent to the opposite parties were returned.
7. The complainant relied upon a decision on limitation point in Mr.Anand Prabhakar Vs. T.N.Ramachandra Shetty Revision Petition No.2745 of 2012 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The National Commission held that;
“As regard the point of limitation is concerned, the C.P. Act 1986 passed by the Parliament with a hope that the interest of the consumers has to be protected that is in order to curb the exploitation from the service providers and the C.P. Act is a special law overrides the general law of limitation. Since the respondent fails to pay the amount covered under the FDR with interest, after exhausting the oral requests and demands, respondent got issued the legal notice to the appellant but, it failed to answer the same. Therefore, the respondent got the recurring cause of action to prefer a complaint seeking direction to refund the amount with interest.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of record, now the point that stood for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for payment of maturity amount as prayed for.
9. A perusal of record discloses that, though the service of notices on opposite parties is held sufficient, they failed to make appearance. Therefore, the claim of complainant is deemed to be admitted by the opposite parties. The averments of complaint and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 remained unquestioned and unchallenged. Accordingly the complainant proved her case. The legal notice under Ex.A3 sent to the opposite parties also returned unserved. Since the opposite parties failed to make appearance and put forth their version, this Forum has no option but to believe the version of complainant. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the non-payment of maturity amount under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by the opposite parties would constitute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of complainant and against opposite parties. As the opposite parties agreed to pay the interest at 24% p.a till the date of maturity, the complainant is entitled for the said interest till the date of maturity and thereafter at the rate of 12% per annum till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs which incurred for publication charges.
POINT NO.2:-
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly with a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- (Thirty six thousand rupees only) towards maturity amount of two fixed deposits with subsequent interest at 12% p.a on the face value of Rs.10,000/- each from their respective dates of expiry of maturity date till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) towards costs including publication charges. The other claims of the complainant if any are hereby dismissed. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11th day of March, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 A.Venkata Bharathi None. Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 16.02.2002 Fixed deposit receipt for Rs.10,000/-.
Ex.A.2 28.06.2002 Fixed deposit receipt for Rs.10,000/-.
Ex.A.3 24.06.2013 office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.4 . . Unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.5 . . Unserved returned cover.
Ex.A.6 . . Unserved returned cover.
On behalf of the opposite parties:-
Nil
PRESIDENT
