<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 19th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs.260/2009, 261/2009, 262/2009, 263/2009 & 264/2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.260/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.261/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.262/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.263/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.264/2009COMPLAINANT Sri.Veerabhadrappa,S/o Siddalingappa,Aged about 52 years,R/o. No.1-3-300,Nijalingappa Colony,Raichur.Sri.Mehaboob Peera,S/o Dastagirsaab,R/o at Raichur.Smt.C.Padmavathamma,Age 74 years,W/o C.V.Ramannaiyaa,R/a H.No.1-4-158/34,Datar Colony,Raichur.N.Vijaya,53 years,W/o N.Ashok Kumar,R/o No.1-4-158/34,Datar Colony,Raichur.Smt.Rajani,W/o Dr.Sudeendra,Employee in Corporation Bank,R/o H.No.1-4-158/34,Datar Colony,Raichur.Advocate (Smt.Vidya Jahagirdar)<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES V/s1. Sri.Srinivas Shastry,President,VINIV-INC Souhardha Credit Co-operative Limited, No.53 to 58, 2nd & 4th Floor,Chakravarthy Complex,Sajjan Rao Circle, V.V.Puram,Bangalore – 560 004.2. Sri.Lokesh,Secretary,VINIV-INC Souhardha Credit Co-operative Limited,No.53 to 58, 2nd & 4th Floor,Chakravarthy Complex,Sajjan Rao Circle, V.V.Puram,Bangalore – 560 004.(Now both are in Judicial Custody & service through Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara, Bangalore)<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the complaints filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking for the refund of their deposits which they have made with the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> As the opposite parties are common, the question involved, relief claimed being same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid repetition of facts, multiciplity of reasoning, these cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> 2. The respective complainants referred to above having been carried away with the monthly rate of interest which OP promised to offer on the fixed deposits, deposited their hard earned money as per the statement in the form of a chart given below on various dates. OP being a company engaged in financial dealings, receiving of deposits, accepted the said deposits and acknowledged them by issuing the receipts on the respective dates. Thereafter OP failed to pay the interest as promised and even failed to return the deposits made by these complainants. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants seeking for refund of the deposits have gone in vain. OP on one or the other pretext went on dodging the repayment of the investors and one fine day closed down its business and ran away. Thus the complainants felt that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of theirs they are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. They felt OP has cheated them. There is a breach of promise, carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances complainants are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> The details of investment made by each one of the complainant is as follows.<br /> <br /> Sl. No. Complaint No. & Complainant Name Receipt No. Date Amount Deposited/ Claimed.<br /> 1) 260/2009Veerabhadrappa 38406 20907 15981 30116 12503 10.02.200507.06.200419.02.2004 25.10.2004 21.09.2004 Rs.1,00,000-00 Rs. 40,000-00 Rs. 10,000-00Rs. 50,000-00 Rs. 11,088-00<br /> Rs.2,11,088-00<br /> 2) 261/2009 Mehaboob Peera 32614 30732 29.11.2004 12.11.2004 Rs.10,000-00 Rs.20,000-00<br /> Rs.30,000-00<br /> 3) 262/2009 Smt.C.Padmavathamma 37638 31.01.2005 Rs.10,000-00<br /> 4) 263/2009N.Vijaya 37637 31.01.2005 Rs.5,000-00<br /> 5) 264/2009Smt.Rajani 36048 11.01.2005 Rs.15,000-00<br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint notices were sent to the OP who are now housed in the Central Jail of Bangalore. The notices were duly served on the OP through the Jail Superintendent. OP’s have not made any arrangement to represent themselves in these cases. Thus the complainants were asked to file their affidavit evidence.<br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced the respective documents. OP neither filed the version nor participated in the proceedings. Hence the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the contention of the each one of the complainants that they being lured away with a higher rate of interest promised by OP that too at the rate of 5% p.m on the fixed deposit, deposited their hard earned money as mentioned in their complaint and as noted in the above said statement. It is not a small amount. Each one of these complainants have deposited a huge amount. OP acknowledged the said amount and issued receipts. The documents to that effect are produced by the respective complainants.<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence of these complainants finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. OP has not denied the averments made in the complaint or in the affidavit evidence leave apart the contents of the documents relied upon by the complainants. The non participation of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainants in toto.<br /> <br /> 7. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The evidence of these complainants both oral and documentary has remained unchallenged. It is an unimpeachable evidence. OP retained the said huge amount, accrued the wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainants that too for no fault of theirs. Naturally complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. There is a proof of deficiency in service, breach of promise, carelessness, negligence and hostile attitude on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that these are the fit cases wherein complainant deserves the relief claimed. For these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaints are allowed.<br /> 1) In complaint No.260/2009, OP is directed to refund Rs.2,11,088/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and also pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 2) In complaint No.261/2009, OP is directed to refund Rs.30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and also pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 3) In complaint No.262/2009, OP is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and also pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 4) In complaint No.263/2009, OP is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and also pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 5) In complaint No.264/2009, OP is directed to refund Rs.15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization and also pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.260/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> V.l.n* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />