KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 31/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 441/2019 of CDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Branch Manager, Muthoot Fincorp Ltd., Thammanam Junction, Ernakulam-682 032.

                             (By Advs. John Prakash Bavakatt & Nimmy Shaji)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

T.N. Subramaniom, Vanamalee, ALRA 13, Ananthapuram, Kochi-682 032.

                                     (Party in person)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant herein is the opposite party in C.C. No. 441/2019 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short).  The respondent is the complainant. 

2.  Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had a subordinate debt of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the opposite party, which was created on 14.02.2014 on condition that the debt would mature within 66 months at 13.4% compound interest and would be repaid on 14.08.2019.  The maturity amount of the debt was Rs. 10,00,000/-.  The complainant stated that as per the agreement on 14.08.2019 the maturity amount would be credited to the complainant’s bank account.  But the opposite party failed to credit the amount on 14.08.2019 as per the agreement.  The complainant enquired about the matter on 20.09.2019 and the Branch Manager informed that they had forgotten to send notice about the date of maturity and to repay the amount.  On surrendering the debenture certificate on 19.09.2019 the opposite party credited Rs. 10,02,027/- on 20.09.2019 to the complainant’s bank account.  The complainant enquired about the additional amount of Rs. 2,027/- to the opposite party.  Opposite party replied that it was the interest at 4% for Rs. 5,00,000/- for the delayed period of 35 days.  Then the complainant requested the opposite party to pay Rs. 13.4% interest for the total amount of RS. 10,00,000/- for 35 days.  But the opposite party was not willing to pay that amount to the complainant.  Hence the complainant approached the District Commission. 

3.  The opposite party received notice from the District Commission.  But did not turn up to contest the case.  Hence the opposite party remained ex-parte. 

4.  The complainant had produced 6 documents and filed proof affidavit. 

5.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant the District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay interest @ 13.4% for the subordinated debt, which was matured on 14.08.2019 to the value of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the belated period of 35 days.  Opposite party was further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.  Against this impugned order the opposite party has filed this appeal. 

6.  The appellant/opposite party argued that interest ceases to accrue on the due date of redemption of the subordinate debt.  With respect to the payment on maturity the certificate clearly mandated that “the Subordinate Debt Certificate duly discharged over a revenue stamp of Re. 1 must be surrendered to the company for repayment at least 15 days prior to the maturity date”.  The respondent/complainant did not do so. 

7.  It is the duty of the appellant to intimate the matter to the respondent before the maturity date.  The complainant had not received any intimation regarding maturity date of the subordinate debt or produced a revenue stamp of Re. 1 to the company for payment at least 15 days prior to the maturity date.  The argument of the appellant in that matter is not admissible.  The respondent/complainant had produced intimation letters sent by other banks regarding the maturity date of deposits.  Definitely it is the duty of the opposite party to send notice to the complainant regarding the maturity date and other formalities for refund of the deposits. 

8.  The District Forum found that the complainant was entitled to get interest @13.4% for the maturity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from 14.08.2019 to 20.09.2019.  The District Forum also found that the complainant was entitled to get compensation for the redressal of his grievances due to the act of the opposite party. 

9.  For the above mentioned discussion we are of the view that the finding of the District Commission is correct.  But the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the District Forum is high since the respondent will get interest @ 13.4% for Rs. 10,00,000/-.  So we deduct the compensation amount from 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.  Other part of the order of the District Forum is confirmed.  There is no order of costs.

The respondent has the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, on proper application.      

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb