Date of Complaint : 12/06/2014

                                  Date of Disposal :23/04/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

 SRI. V.A. PATIL, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. The complaint has filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opponent for deficiency of service and prays for directing the opponent to pay Rs.10,000/- with 18% interest pertaining to Teak Bond under C1-9 years plan with a maturity value of 16 CFT teak wood or it’s value of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- being the cost of the proceedings.

    

2. The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant had invested a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the opponent on 15/01/2004.As the said deposit amount is matured the opponent asked for the refund of the deposited amount.As the opponent denies for repayment the legal notice is issued to the opponent on 25/03/2014 and the same is served on the opponent.Inspite of the same also the opponent failed to make the payment.Hence, the complainant approached this Forum seeking for the remedy.

    

3. After admission of complaint, the notice was issued to the opponent by RPAD.The same is served and the case was posted for filing the affidavit of the complainant.There upon the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and has relied upon documents in support of his case.The argument of the complainant was heard and then posted the case for orders.

    

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

    

5. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service against the opponent and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

    

6. To what order the party is entitled?

    

7. 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

8. Point No.1 :- The complainant in his complaint and in his affidavit has stated that the complainant had purchased Teak Bond for Rs.10,000/- bearing receipt No.182367, Bond No.C-40557, Application No.C-40557, dated 15/01/2004 from the opponent.  The opponent has issued a Teak Bond to the complainant to that effect.  After the maturity of the bond on 15/01/2013 the complainant had asked the opponent to repay the said maturity amount with interest.  As the opponent refused to make the payment, the legal notice is issued to the opponent on 25/03/2014 and the same is served on the opponent.  Inspite of the receipt of the said notice the opponent did not made mind to make the payment.  The complainant had to go to opponent’s Office at Bangalore as the Madikeri office was closed long back. The complainant states that the opponent had not repaid the amount and the assured interest on the amount which shows deficiency in service on the part of opponent.

    

9. The complainant has produced the original Teak Bond bearing receipt No.182367 dated 15/01/2004 for Rs.10,000/- which clearly shows that the opponent had received a totalsum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant.The documentary evidence placed on record fully corroborates the case of the complainant that she had invested a sum of 10,000/- in the opponent company on 15/01/2004.The notice was served to the opponent was received, but the opponent remained absent throughout the hearing of the case and hence the opponent placed exparte.The evidence adduced by the complainant remained unchallenged.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant supported by documents.

    

10. In view of the afore said reasons, we are of the opinion, that the complainant has established her case as made out in the complaint by placing sufficient materials on record.The complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with 18% interest from the date of maturity i.e. from 15/01/2013 till the date of realization and also Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-towards the cost of this proceedings from the opponent.Accordingly we answer point no.1 partly in the affirmative.

     

11. Point No.2:- In view of our findings, we proceed to pass the following;

     

    O R D E R

            The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by Smt. Lakkandra.J. Komala against the Managing Director, Guru Teak Investments (Mysore) Pvt.Ltd., is hereby partly allowed. 

12. The opponent is directed to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- the maturity value, to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date ofmaturity i.e., on 15/01/2013 till the date of full realisation.

13. The opponent is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- 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/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till realization of the entire amount.

14. If this order is violated the complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against the opponent for the offences punishable under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.

15.  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 23^rd  day of April  2015)