Date of filing : 16-07-2011
Date of Disposal: 06-08-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 6th day of August, 2012
C.C.NO. 125/2011
Between:
S.K.Suresh Babu
S/o Aswathaiah
D.No.3/103, Main Road
Chilamathur
Anantapur District. …. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Authorized Signatory,
Mukunda Industrial Finance Limited,
Branch Office, D.No.17-3-630-A2,
Upstairs, K.L. Road, Hindupur – 515 201
Anantapur District.
2. The Manager,
Mukunda Industrial Finance Limited,
Registered Office, H.D.R. Complex,
No.328/12, 14th Cross, II Block
Jayanagar,
Bangalore -560 011. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri H.Nageswara Rao, advocate for the complainant and Sri N.R.K.Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards F.D.R. amount, Rs.1,000/- towards interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.20,000/- from 14-02-2011 to 14-07-2011, Rs.20,000/- towards Cumulative Deposit amount, Rs.6,000/- towards interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.20,000/- from 05-12-20008 to 15-06-2011 and Rs.10,000/- towards damages in total Rs.57,000/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. from 15-07-2011 till the date of payment and Rs.1500/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of Chilamathur Town. The opposite party No.1 is the Branch Office situated at Hindupur Town and the opposite party No.2 is the Head Office of the opposite party No.1 situated at Bangalore. The opposite parties are doing finance business and the opposite parties are accepting Fixed Deposits from the public and issuing the deposit receipts to the customers. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- under application No.14668 dt.13-02-2008 and the opposite party No.1 issued the deposit receipt No.2192/3253 dt.13-02-2008 in favour of the complainant. The period of deposit is for 36 months and the interest agreed to pay is at 12% p.a. The complainant again deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with opposite party No.1 under application No.15615 dt.05-12-2008 and the period of deposit is for 36 months i.e. from 05-12-2008 to 05-12-2011 . The opposite party No.1 issued receipt No.3581 dt.05-12-2008 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the name of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 issued Cumulative Deposit Receipt No.2777/3595 and the date of maturity as 05-12-2011 and the maturity amount as Rs.28,620/-. For the said amount no interest was paid by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant demanded the opposite parties to return the F.D. amount of Rs.20,000/- and future interest on Rs.20,000/- from 04-02-0211 and also to prematurely close the account under Cumulative Deposit on 05-12-2008 with interest @ 12% p.a. The complainant surrendered the Cumulative Deposit Receipt for pre-mature closure and the opposite party No.1 did not accept the same and informed to submit the same to the 2nd opposite party and they will arrange the payment. With such instructions from the opposite party No.1 the complainant submitted Cumulative Deposit Receipt No.2777/3595 to the opposite party No.2 through Registered Post dt.15-06-2011 and the same was accepted by the opposite party No.2 on 18-06-2011 but they failed to settle the both deposit amounts with interest. The opposite party No.1 paid the interest to the complainant upto the maturity date i.e. 13-02-2011, but failed to pay the deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- with future interest from 14-02-2011. Subsequently the complainant demanded the opposite party No.1 to pay principal amount + interest on delayed payment i.e. from 14-02-2011, but the opposite party No.1 postponed the same on one pretext or the other and evaded the payment. As the 1st opposite party failed to pay the amount deposited by the complainant with interest after maturity the complainant says it is nothing but deficiency of service, hence the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages.
3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the allegation that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- under application No.14668 dt.13-02-2008 and this opposite party issued receipt No,.2192/3253 dt.13-02-2008 in favour of the complainant as not correct. The further allegation that the period of deposit is for 36 months is not disputed and the rate of interest is also not disputed. The opposite party No.1 submits that in fact the opposite party No.1 is only a mediator between the complainant and opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is only a collection point from the subscribers and to handover the bonds send by the opposite party No.2 to the respective subscribers. As such opposite party No.1 collected the amount from the complainant and handed over the bond to the subscriber which was sent by the opposite party No.2 and the liability of the opposite party No.1 is limited and restricted. The further allegation that the opposite party No.1paid interest on Rs.20,000/- upto-date of maturity and failed to pay deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- with future interest from 14-02-0211 till the date of payment is not correct and the interest paid to the complainant is only by the opposite party No.2 but not the opposite party No.1 as alleged. Further allegation that the complainant again deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- with the opposite party No.1 under application No.15615 dt.05-12-2008 for a period of 36 months i.e. from 05-12-2008 to 05-12-2011 is correct. But the deposit bonds were issued by the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 only handed over the same to the complainant. As already stated this opposite party is only negotiated between them. The further allegation that the opposite party failed to pay the interest amount to the complainant from 05-12-2008 till the date and the opposite party evaded the payment on one pretext or the other for the demand made by the complainant to return the amount of deposit of Rs.20,000/- with interest is not correct. The further allegation that the complainant surrendered the deposit receipt for premature closer and that this opposite party did not accept and suggested to submit the same to Head Office and that they will arrange the payment of amount is correct. It is the discretion of the opposite party No.2 whether to consider pre-mature closer or not and in fact there is no such provision for premature closer of the F.D. so the complaint itself is pre-mature one with regard to Cumulative Deposit of Rs.20,000/- made on 05-12-2008.
4. Further the allegation made by the complainant demanded the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- plus interest from 14-02-2011, but the same was postponed on one pretext or the other and evaded the payment of amount is not correct. The opposite party No.1 further submits that in fact there is no Branch Office at Hindupur at present. The opposite party No.1 closed its premises and for every transaction the 2nd opposite party is doing transactions directly with the subscribers. So the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the 2nd opposite party but not against opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 further submits that the complainant after going through the contents of the terms and conditions of the deposit application forms only deposited the said amount and in condition No.38 of the terms and conditions it is clearly mentioned that deposits are accepted subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. Thus it is very clear that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The opposite party No.2 filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction and if so whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
2. To what relief?
7. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 document.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT NO.1 - The case of the complainant is that he is a permanent resident of Chilamathur Town and deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- under application No.14668 dt.13-02-2008 and the opposite party No.1 issued receipt No.2192/3253 dt.13-02-2008 in favour of the complainant. The term of the fixed deposit is for 36 months and interest payable is @ 12% p.a.. The complainant in his complaint clearly mentioned that he received interest upto-date of maturity i.e. from 13-02-2008 to 13-02-2011 on the F.D. amount of Rs.20,000/- and the interest on the deposit from 14-02-2011 in addition to the principle amount of Rs.20,000/- was only due from the opposite party No.1 and the same was postponed by the opposite party No.1.
10. Subsequently the complainant made another deposit of Rs.20,000/- under application No.15615 dt.05-12-2008 for a period of 36 months is not denied by the opposite parties and the said deposit is a Cumulative Deposit and the interest will be added to the principal and paid only after the maturity date. As the maturity date is on 05-12-2011 the question of pre-maturity closer does not arise is the argument made by the opposite parties counsel. Ex.A1 & A2 documents which are deposit receipts issued by the opposite party No.1. In addition to the said deposit, the 2nd deposit which was made on 05-12-2008 and in the receipt it is printed as Branch Office with D.No.17-3-630-A2, first floor, K.L. Road, Hindupur – 515 004, which is marked as Ex.B1 clearly establishes that the opposite party No.1 is the Branch Office located at Hindupur and it is only to escape from the jurisdiction of this Forum only the opposite party No.1 has argued that he is only a mediator and it is the opposite party No.2, who had issued the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the complainant.
11. After hearing the arguments of both sides and after careful examination of the documents filed by the complainant in Ex.A1 & A2, which are the deposit receipts issued by the opposite party No.1 it is clearly mentioned as Hindupur Branch and this shows that opposite party No.2 had a Branch Office at Hindupur, which falls under the jurisdiction of this Forum. But whereas the opposite parties counsel argued that there is no Branch Office at Hindupur and it was only a mediator to collect the amount from the subscribers and issue deposit receipts, which are sent by the 2nd opposite party to the subscribers. This argument is not tenable as it is clearly mentioned on the deposit receipt as Hindupur Branch. It is only to avoid the complaint in this Forum by raising the point of jurisdiction the opposite party No.1 has taken the plea of mediator but opposite party No.1 is treated as Branch Office of opposite party No.2. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that this Forum has jurisdiction over the opposite parties. Next point i.e. to be considered is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1& 2.
12. As per the complaint the complainant clearly mentioned that he received the interest on the deposit of Rs.20,000/- from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e. 14-02-2011 from the opposite party No.1 only and the deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- and the interest after maturity date is due from the opposite party No.1 and the same was delayed by the opposite party No.1 on one pretext or the other and evaded the payment. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum for relief. This shows that the opposite parties 1 & 2 caused deficiency of service to the complainant by not repaying the deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- after maturity + future interest and in order to evade this complaint they have taken the plea of jurisdiction. But as the opposite party No.1 is the Branch Office of the opposite party No.2, who collected the amount from the complainant on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and paid interest on the said deposit up-to date of maturity shows that this Forum has got jurisdiction. Hence in the above circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite parties1 & 2 have failed to repay the deposit amount of the complainant and thereby caused deficiency of service for which they are liable to pay damages to the complainant.
13. POINT NO.2 - In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- with future interest from 14-02-2011 @ 12% p.a. and also to pay another deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- under Cumulative Deposit with interest @12% p.a. from 05-12-2008 also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 6th day of August, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt dt.13-02-2008 issued by the 1st opposite party
For Rs.20,000/- in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 – Photocopy of Cumulative Deposit Receipt dt.05-12-2008 issued by the 1st opposite
Party for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3 – Postal acknowledgement signed by the opposite party No.2
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 – Original application form dt.05-12-2008 submitted by the complainant to the
1st opposite party and original application form dt.13-02-2008 submitted by
the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
