Date of Complaint :03/02/2014

                                  Date of Disposal :29/01/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  SMT. K.D. PARVATHY, MEMBER

O R D E R

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponent for deficiency of service directing the opponent nos.1 and 2 to pay cheque amount of Rs.25,600/- which was issued by the opponent no.1 through cheque bearing No.638395 from the opponent no.1’s account No.64088822922 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 17/01/2014 till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- being the cost of the complaint.

2. After the admission of the complaint as usual issued the notices to the opponents by RPAD.  Inspite of service of notice, opponent no.1 remained absent.  Hence, opponent no.1 has been placed exparte.  The case against opponent no.2 has been dismissed since the counsel for the complainant filed a memo as not pressing the case against opponent no.2.  Hence, posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.  There upon, the complainant has filed her affidavit in lieu of evidenced and has relied upon documents in support of her case.  The arguments of the complainant were heard and then posted the case for orders. 

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the arguments submitted by the complainant, the following points that would arise for our consideration are as follows;

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service against the opponents and she is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

2. To what order the parties are entitled?

4. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows;

          Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative

          Point No.2 :- As per order

R E A S O N S

5. Point No.1:-The complainant in her complaint and in her affidavit has stated that she had invested Rs.20,000/- with opponent no.1 on 26/12/2005 for which the complainant has received a receipt bearing the No.5793 that she would get agricultural farm land after 10 years.  The complainant upon enquiry with the OP found out that the opponent had done away with the scheme of giving out agricultural land but mislead that the opponent was giving out money lieu of the land promised.  The complainant insisted the opponent to return her money with interest for which the opponent gave the complainant a cheque for Rs.25,600/-  drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Shankarapuram branch, Bangalore bearing cheque No.638395 dated 30/10/2013.  The complainant presented the cheque of the opponent for encashment through her bankers State Bank of Mysore, Ponnampet on 17/1/2014, but the cheque had been returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds.

6. The documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the opponent.  The documentary evidence placed on record fully corroborates a case of the complainant that she had invested the sum of Rs.20,000/- in the company of the opponent in the year 2005 and also that the opponent no.1 had issued a cheque of Rs.25,600/- in favour of the complainant as the opponent no.1 had failed to give agriculture farm land to the complainant.  The evidence adduced by the complainant remained unchallenged.  The opponent no.1 has remained absent inspite of notice being duly served.  The case against opponent no.2 has been dismissed as the council for the complainant has filed a memo not pressing the case against opponent no.2, hence nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence which is supported by documents. 

7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established her case as made out in the complaint by placing sufficient material on record.  The complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.25,600/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 17/1/2014 till the date of realization and also Rs.5,000/- towards her mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings from opponent  no.1.  Accordingly we answered point no.1 partly in the affirmative.

8. Point No.2 :- In view of our findings on point no.1 we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

     The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by Smt. M.S. Devamma on 03/02/2014 against the Managing Director, M/s Guru Agri Farms Pvt.Ltd, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore Pvt.Ltd., is hereby partly allowed.

1. The Opponent no.1 is directed to pay the sum of Rs.25,600/- (twenty five thousand six hundred ) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% from 17/01/2014 till the date of payment.
2. The opponent no.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) towards mental agony caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand ) towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the said total amount of Rs.7,000/- (seven thousand) only with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization of the entire amount.
3. If this order is violated the complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against opponent no.1 for the offences punishable under section 27 of the C.P. Act  which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
4. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 22^nd day of January 2015)

      (V.M. ARADHYA)            (K.D. PARVATHY)        (LATHA M.S.)

         PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                   MEMBER