IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> B.A(Hons), LL.B - President<br /> <br /> 2. Smt.M.Mahadevi<br /> M.Sc., M.Ed., -Member<br /> <br /> 3. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 182 and 183/06 DATED 10-08-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 182-06 Prameeth Jain, D.No.636, Ashoka Road, Mysore.<br /> Rep. by his father Pradeep Kumar<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 183-06 Smt. Vanama B.Surya,<br /> W/o Brahama Surya, D.No.2768, Hallada Keri, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By B.Kantharaju, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Parties in both cases M/s Srinidhi Finance Corporation Rep. by<br /> <br /> 1. S.V.Jayasena Kumar, S/o S.G.Vrushobarajaiah, Managing Partner, M/s Srinidhi Finance Corp., Mahaveera Road, Saligrama.<br /> <br /> 2. S.N.Madhu, S/o K.C.Mallikarjunaiah, Asst. Managing Partner, Mahaveera Road, Saligrama, K.R.Nagar Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> <br /> 3. S.M.Raghu, S/o S.L.Marigowda, Partner, New Extension, Saligrama.<br /> <br /> 4. S.N.Mahesh, S/o S.H.Ningegowda, Partner, Brahamins Street, Saligrama.<br /> <br /> 5. S.K.Ramesh, S/o Kalegowda, Partner, Gurumatha Road, Saligrama.<br /> 6. S.L.Anand, S/o S.L.Laxmegowda, Partner, Mahaveera Road, Saligrama.<br /> <br /> 7. S.B.Arun, S/o S.P.Bhavishat Kumar, Partner, Mahaveera Road, Saligrama, <br /> K.R.Nagar Taluk.<br /> <br /> (O.P.1 – Deceased and O.P.2 to 7 –Exparte)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in Service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 26-06-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 10-08-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainants had made the following deposits with the Opposite Party<br /> Compt. No. Complainant’s Name Rec. No. Date of Deposit Amt. in Rs. Date of Maturity Amt. of maturity in Rs.<br /> 182/06 Prameeth Jain 19 05-03-00 10,000 05-03-05 20,000<br /> 183/06 Vanamala B.Surya 21 21-03-00 10,000 21-03-05 20,000<br /> <br /> 2. After the date of maturity, the complainants approached the O.P for receiving the maturity value. However, the Opposite Party went on giving one reason or the other but did not pay the maturity proceeds. Later on, the complainants got issued a legal notice on 27-03-2006 calling upon the Opposite Party to repay the maturity proceeds. However, notice sent to the first partner of the Opposite Party finance Corporation Shri S.V.Jayasena Kumar returned with an endorsement that he is deceased. Notice sent to the 7th partner Shri S.B.Arun was duly served. But the other partners (2 to 6) refused the notices. As, there was no compliance of the request of the complainants, this complaint came to be filed.<br /> 3. None of the notices sent from the Forum have been served on the partners listed in the cause title of the complaint. Whereas the notice sent to first partner Shri M.V.Jayasena Kumar has returned that he is deceased, notices sent to all the other partners have returned with an endorsement “refused”. Hence, deeming the service as sufficient the Opposite Party was placed ex-parte.<br /> 4. Only one point arises for our consideration:-<br /> Whether the complainants prove that the Opposite Party has rendered deficient service by not paying them maturity proceeds?<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is pertinent to note that the complainants had filed similar cases before this Forum in CC 394 and 395. Both complaints were dismissed on the ground that all partners were not made parties to the complaints. Liberty was given to the complainants to file proper complaints. Hence, these complaints.<br /> 6. Both the complainants have filed the original deposit receipts issued by the Opposite Party. They have, also, produced a receipt dated 31-08-2005 issued by the Opposite Party presumably of pigmy deposit account of an account holder to show that the Opposite Party firm is still functioning.<br /> 7. We have no doubt that the Opposite Party has rendered deficient service by not repaying the maturity proceeds. Their refusal to participate in the proceedings by refusing to receive the notice sent from the Forum is further proof of the guilt. In view of this, we answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both complaints are allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite Party is directed to repay the maturity proceeds to the complainants within two months from today along with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of maturity until the date of payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite Party shall pay the complainants compensation of Rs.2,000 to each of the complainants within two months from the date of this order.<br /> 4. The Opposite Party shall pay each complainant cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 5. Keep original copy of this order in C.C.182/06 and Xerox copy of this order in C.C.183/06.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this Order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 10th August 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> (Ashok Kumar J.Dhole)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.Mahadevi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br />