| COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008 05th SEPTEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1401/2008 COMPLAINANT L. Kamalaksh Rao, 436, 1 G Cross, 3 B Main, 6th Block, Banashankari 3rd Stage, (Banashankari) (2nd Phase) Bangalore 560 085. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager, UTI Financial Centre, B-14 & 15, Ground Floor, Devatha Plaza, 132, Residency Road, Bangalore 560 025. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the principal amount along with the interest pertaining to US 64 bonds of the complainant and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being a senior citizen is a holder of 295 units of US 64 bonds each valued Rs.100/- issued by the OP. The said units were due for redemption along with interest by 1st of June 2008. OP is expected to pay Rs.29,500/- towards the principal and interest of Rs.995.62 in all Rs.30,495.62. Though complainant complied all the requirements, OP failed to settle the said claim evenafter the lapse of 25 days. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending the date of redemption being 01.06.2008. The claim of the complainant for interest on maturity value from 01.06.2008 is not maintainable. On the receipt of the claim of the complainant OP has settled and forwarded the maturity proceeds along with the interest to the tune of Rs.30,496/- to the complainants bank account through ECS on 30.06.2008 itself, it was credited by the bank on 04.07.2008 in complainants account. Under the circumstances the present claim of the complainant is in-fructuous. Of course later on OP came to know the said amount was not credited into the complainants account in time by the destination bank namely Karnataka Bank. With all that complainant has not made the said Karnataka Bank as a party in this complaint. Hence complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In order to keep good relationship between the investor and the OP, OP calculated the interest at the rate of 6.75% from 01.06.2008 to 03.07.2008 to avoid inconvenience caused to the complainant and issued cheque for Rs.186.10, complainant failed to collect the same. OP has complied all the relevant claims made by the complainant. Hence complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant being a senior citizen is a holder of 295 units each valued Rs.100/- under US 64 bonds scheme issued by the OP. The due date for redemption along with the interest was 01.06.2008. Thereafter though complainant complied all the requirements, OP failed to refund the said amount which will come to the tune of Rs.30,495.62. OP took its own sweat time of more than 25 days to settle the claim. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that they did process the said demand of the complainant well within the stipulated time. Complainant is not entitled to claim the interest from 01st June 2008. After considering the claim of the complainant OP processed for redemption and forwarded the maturity proceeds along with interest to the tune of Rs.30,496/- through ECS and that amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 04th July 2008. That means to say there is a delay in settling the claim for more than 32 days. The admitted fact need not be proved. 8. In order to avoid their responsibility OP has come up with a defence that the destination Bank where the complainant had his account namely the Karnataka Bank did not credit the amount in time, though it was sent through ECS on 30.06.2008 itself. For that OP cannot be blamed. We do not find force in the said defence. It is further contended that the said Karnataka Bank is a necessary party. Complainant availed the services of the OP, it is his choice to redress his grievance against the party who failed to discharge their duties. It is further contended that in order to keep good rapport they did calculate the interest at the rate of 6.75% from 01.06.2008 to 03.07.2008 and ready to pay Rs.186.10. That means to say again OP admits its fault in not settling the claim in time, hence the complainant is entitled to claim the interest for the delayed settlement. Complainant waited for more than 27 days then lodged the complaint on 25.06.2008. Having come to know of the said fact OP in order to save its skin out of sin has come up with defence that they are ready to pay the interest of Rs.186.10 during the course of their version dated 29th July 2008. 9. Having taken note of all these facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled for certain relief. The justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.500/- along with Rs.186.10 the interest which OP has calculated and the litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.500/-, interest amount of Rs.186.10 and litigation cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 05th day of September 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT |
---|
|
---|
|