CC Filed on 22.11.2010
Disposed on 16.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 16th day of July 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLET. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 229/2010
Between:
Sri. K.N. Gopalakrishna, S/o. Nachappa, Aged about 46 years, R/a KithandurVillage, Thotli Post, Kolar Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. A.V. Ananda & others) V/S 1. The Manager, Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited, Kolar Branch, M.B. Road, Kolar. 2. Sri. Ramamurthy, Working as Agri Gold Agent, R/a ChitnhalliVillage, Thotli Post, Kolar Taluk. 3. The Manager, Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private Limited, Registered & Administration Office, D.No. 40-1-21/21, 4th Floor, Catholic Complex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520 010. | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
(By Advocate Sri. P.S. Nagarajan & others) | |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he had account with the 1st Opposite Party Company and he was paying Rs.30/- per day through the 1st Opposite Party and relating to it the 1st Opposite Party has issued a bond with maturity date as on 09.01.2007 and maturity is Rs.22,500/-. After the maturity period the complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party to pay that amount and at that time, it was learnt that the 1st Opposite Party has paid that amount to somebody one else at the instance of 2nd Opposite Party. The complainant is still having the original bond with him and he is entitled to this amount. Hence non-payment of the amount by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to OP to pay Rs.22,500/- and to pay Rs.5,000/- as damages and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation.
2. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have filed common version and they have admitted the allegations that the complainant has deposited the amount as alleged by him. It is stated that the complainant stopped paying the amount and he had paid in part, then the complainant made application to refund the amount and the Opposite Parties have refunded the amount of Rs.16,043/- on 16.01.2007 and obtained acknowledgement. Hence false complaint is filed even though the complainant has received the amount. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Affirmative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: In our opinion the complainant has established the alleged deficiency in service for the following reason. There is no dispute that the complainant has deposited the amount with the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties has issued the bond. The complainant has also produced the copy of the bond issued by the Opposite Parties and it shows that Rs.22,500/- is payable on that bond on its maturity is on 09.01.2007. It is the case of the complainant that the said amount has not been paid to him. The Opposite Parties contends that Rs.16,043/- has been paid to the complainant by obtaining the acknowledgment. Hence the burden of proof is on the Opposite Parties to substantiate their contention. The Opposite Parties have not produced the acknowledgement said to have been given by the complainant. On the other hand the Opposite parties have produced a copy of the settlement of account. In this document it is stated that even though the amount was deposited by the complainant, his whereabouts were not known for 4 years and because of it the account was settled in favour of the complainant’s mother. This document goes to show that the amount has not paid to the complainant and it was paid to the complainant’s mother. The Opposite Parties have not brought to our notice under what authority the amount was paid to the complainant’s mother. In the absence of any authority given by the complainant to receive that amount, if any payment is made, to his mother, he is not bound by it. Hence we hold that the Opposite Parties have not paid the amount to the complainant, to which he was entitled. Hence the non-payment of the amount to which the complainant was entitled, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this point is held in favour of the complainant.
6. Point No.2: In our opinion the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with reasonable interest from the date of maturity i.e. on 09.01.2007 until actual payment. It is seen that even though the maturity value is Rs.22,500/-, the payment made by the complainant was only Rs.16,043/-. This statement is made in the affidavit of the Opposite Parties and it is not disputed by the complainant. Hence we hold that the Opposite Parties is liable to pay Rs.16,043/- under the said bond. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 shall be liable to pay Rs.16,043/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 09.01.2007 until actual payment. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 shall pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of July 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
