Date of Filing:13.07.2005 <br /> Date of Order:06.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 877 OF 2005 <br /> 1. Pavana,<br /> W/o S.R. Channabasappa,<br /> <br /> 2. S.R. Channabasappa,<br /> Both are R/o No.38, II Main Road,<br /> Chamarajpet,<br /> Bangalore-560 018. Complainants<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 878 OF 2005 <br /> 1. Pavana,<br /> W/o S.R. Channabasappa,<br /> <br /> 2. S.R. Channabasappa,<br /> Both are R/o No.38, II Main Road,<br /> Chamarajpet,<br /> Bangalore-560 018. Complainants<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The Managing Director,<br /> S & S Industries & Enterprises,<br /> C/o Alpha Financial Consultancy<br /> Services Private Limited,<br /> Sabari Complex, No.24, Residency Road,<br /> Bangalroe-560 025.<br /> <br /> <br /> Also at:<br /> <br /> A-3, I Main Road, <br /> Ambuttur Industrial Estate,<br /> Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.<br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Alpha Financial Consultancy <br /> Services Private Limited,<br /> Sabari Complex,<br /> No.24, Residency Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 025. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These two cases are clubbed together for disposal as the question of facts and law points involved in these cases are one and the same and the opposite parties in both the cases are one and the same. The respective complainants have filed complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requesting to issue direction to the opposite parties to pay the matured amount of fixed deposit.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainants have deposited amount with the opposite party. On maturity of the fixed deposit the complainants approached the opposite parties to make arrangements for payment of accrued amount under the fixed deposit. The opposite parties expressed their inability to pay the amount due to liquidity constraints downgrading fixed deposit programme. Nothing was heard from the opposite parties for along time. The complainants have learnt that fixed deposits of some other customers have been settled. The complainants requested the opposite parties to look into the matter. Opposite parties failed to keep up their promise. The inaction clearly establishes the deficiency of service. The first opposite party addressed letter in favour of complainants to settle the claim shortly. It is just and appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay compensation for mental agony and hardship. Hence, the complainants have prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the matured amount of the fixed deposit with interest and they have also prayed for grant of compensation.<br /> 2. In both the cases the opposite parties have filed the defence version admitting that the complainants have deposited the amount. They have also admitted that, on matured deposits the complainants approached the agents for realization of the maturity value of the amount. The opposite party approached code of industrial and financial reconstruction. Hon’ble Company Law Board, Southern Bench, Chennai passed an order with certain directions. The Hon’ble District Forums pleased to dispose of the complaints stating that it is not in a position to grant the relief. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:-<br /> Whether the opposite party be directed to repay the matured deposited amount to the respective complainants? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. I have gone through the entire records and documents. These are simple cases filed by the complainants against the opposite parties seeking refund of the deposited amount. These are the simple claims made by the depositors for return of their deposits after maturity. A deposit by the depositors is not a sum lent to the company. The amount deposited with the company to be held in trust by the company till the time of maturity. It is not a loan, therefore claim made by the complainants for refund of deposits made with the company cannot be termed as a suit for recovery of money due. There is absolutely no dispute in these cases that the respective complainants have made deposits with the opposite parties and fixed deposit receipts have been given to the complainants. It is also admitted fact that the opposite parties have not paid the maturity value of the deposits after the date of maturity. Therefore, the complainants were forced to file complaints to the Forum for getting the relief. The learned advocate for the complainants referred to us a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2007 CPJ VOL-IV page-353(NC) wherein their lordship has held as under:-<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 21(b)-Securities-Fixed deposits-Maturity amount not paid-Complaint dismissed by Forum-Principal amount paid during pendency of appeal-Payment of interest denied by State Commission-Hence revision-Contention, BIFR proceedings pending qua OP, complaint not maintainable-Contention not acceptable-No protection available to sick company against fixed deposits-Complaint maintainable-Non-payment of interest unjustified-Revision allowed-Payment of interest @ 14% p.a directed.<br /> Result: R.P. allowed. <br /> The learned advocate for the complainants has also referred to us a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Manupatra Law Reports(Karnataka) page-0922 wherein it has been held that a claim for recovery of deposited amount cannot be termed as suit for recovery of money attracting provisions of Sec.22(1)-Held, interest of depositors had to be protected and that was what exactly had been done by Board-Appeal dismissed. <br /> <br /> So, in view of above authorities of law the complaints presented before the District Forum are maintainable. The Forum can direct the opposite party to pay the deposit amount with interest. As per the defence version, the opposite parties approached BIFR and the matter is pending there and it is also the case of the opposite parties that, CLB scheme is still to be approved by BIFR and the company preferred an appeal before AAIFR under Appeal No.38/2006. The opposite parties also submitted that, matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. It is submitted that, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras had passed interim orders, but the opposite parties have not produced certified copy of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras before this Forum. However, there will be no legal hurdles to dispose of these two complaints with a direction to the opposite party to pay the deposited amount with interest to the complainants. However, the order of the Forum will come into effect after the disposal of matters before AAIFR and Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Subject to the directions and result of the matter pending before the AAIFR and the Madras High Court the opposite party herein has to comply with the order and the opposite party company has to pay back the deposited amount to the complainants with interest and the deposit amount having matured long back. It is unfortunate that the complainants could not get the maturity amount have been put to loss and mental tension, agony etc.,. The opposite party company ultimately has to implement the scheme and abide by the orders that could be passed by AAIFR. Therefore, instead of keeping these complaints pending before this Forum it could be better to dispose of with a direction to the opposite party to pay the deposited amount with interest however, subject to the ultimate order that could be passed by AAIFR. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. Both the complaints are allowed. The complainants in complaint No.877/2005 are entitled for refund of Rs.1,04,472/- with interest at 15% p.a from 7/12/1999 (the date of maturity) till payment. The complainants in complaint No. 878/2005 are entitled for refund of Rs. 92,864/- with interest at 15% p.a from 7/12/1999 (the date of maturity) till payment. The complainants in both the cases are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- each towards the costs of the present proceedings. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount as ordered above. The payments are subject to the direction and order that could be passed in AAIFR, New-Delhi, if the matter is pending there. <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Keep the copy of this order in connected complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above finding.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />