BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 18th February 2015
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
CC.No.369/2014
(Admitted on 20.09.2014)
Smt.Sharada H.Shetty,
W/o Harish Shetty,
D/o Ithappa Shetty,
Aged 65 years,
‘Manjunatheshwara Nilaya’,
Near Cashew Factory, Urwa,
Mangalore-575 006. …… COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.K.P.Bindusara Shetty)
VERSUS
1. The Enterpreneurs Multi-Purpose
Co-Operative Society Ltd.,
No.304, 3rd Floor,
Embassy Building,
Pump Well Circle,
Mangalore 575 002.
2. Sri K.Padmanabha Rai,
S/o Late Narayana Rai,
Nithyananda Nilaya,
Tillery Road, Bolar,
Mangalore 575 001.
3. Sri Puttaswamy,
S/o Bommaraj,
Suraksha Apartments,
Karmar, Alape Padil,
Mangalore-575 007. …. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 to 3: Exparte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant has invested her money by way of Fixed Deposit with the Opposite party as per Term Deposit Receipt No.0316, issued on 20.10.2012 for Rs.3,30,000/- for a period 3 months, repayable with interest Rs.3,35,755/- on 20.1.2013 with option to renew once in three months. It is further stated that the complainant who is in urgent need for cash to meet her financial requirements, tried to contact the opposite parties for refund of fixed deposit amount with accrued interest but the complainant has failed to contact them at the given address. It is further stated that she sent a lawyer’s notice dated 07.07.2014 to the Opposite Parties and the notice was served on the Opposite Party No.2 on 14.7.2014 and notice to Opposite Party No.1 and 3 returned unserved. It is stated that the Opposite Parties are bound to repay the deposit amount but failed to refund the same which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,35,775/- i.e. maturity value along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.1.2013 till payment to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 by R.P.A.D. Inspite receive version notice Opposite Party No.1 to 3 not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence, we proceeded exparte as against Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and Postal Acknowledgement marked as Court Doc.No.1 to 3.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Smt Sharada H.Shetty – Complainant (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C6. Opposite Parties placed exparte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
In the above complaint, the complainant (CW-1) filed affidavit on evidence supported by documents i.e. Ex.C1 Term Deposit Receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.1 shows that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- in term deposit on 20.10.2012 with the Opposite parties for the period of three months (3 months) under the policy No.0316. Under the above said receipt the Opposite Parties have undertaken to repay the same on the date of maturity i.e. 20/1/2013 along with the interest 7% per annum and the maturity value of Rs.3,35,775/-. It is seen on record that, as per the promise made by the Opposite Parties, they are bound to pay the said sum of Rs.3,35,775/- along with interest in this case.
However, it is the definite case of the complainant that, on the date of maturity the complainant had approached the opposite parties on the given address, but the Complainant failed to contact the Opposite Parties thereafter issued a legal notice i.e. Ex. C2. The said notice were served on the Opposite Party No.2 on 14.7.2014 without demur and notice to the Opposite Party No.1 and 3 returned unserved. However, after filing this complaint the Complainant has taken paper publication against the Opposite Party No.1 and 3 in Vijaya Karnataka Kannda Daily news paper. Inspite of that the Opposite Parties nor appeared nor represented the case, the entire evidence placed on record not contradicted nor controverted by the Opposite Parties. Hence it requires no further proof.
However, we find that from the above evidence, it is proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite parties inspite of taking the above said amount under the Term Deposit Receipt failed to refund the said amount on the date of maturity till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the entire amount along with the interest in this case. By considering the above aspect, we hereby directed the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 shall refund a sum of Rs.3,35,755/- (Rupees Three lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred fifty five only) i.e. maturity value along with interest from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization to the complainant and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 shall refund a sum of Rs.3,35,755/- (Rupees Three lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred fifty five only) i.e. maturity value along with interest from the date of deposit till the date of maturity and thereafter shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of realization to the complainant and also pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The F.D.R. if any deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of February 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt Sharada H.Shetty – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 20.10.2012: Original Fixed Deposit Receipt.
Ex C2:7.7.2014: Office copy of Lawyer’s Notice issued to Opposite Parties.
Ex C3 to C5: Postal acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.1 to 3.
Ex C6: 14.12.2014: Paper Publication in Vijaya Karnataka.
COURT DOCUMENTS:
Doc No.1 to 3: Postal acknowledgements.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated: 18-02-2015 PRESIDENT
