Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present :Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 30th day of January, 2004
C.D.No.191/2003
P.Manjula Bai,
W/o P.Dwarakanath,
R/o D.No.18-498,
Sreenagar Colony
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his Counsel
Sri.M.R.Krishna, Advocate
-Vs-
The Managing Director,
M/S Nagarjuna Finance Company Limited,
Registered Office,
Plot No.55, Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party for the payment of maturity amount of the fixed deposit receipt No.C.4511000042 i.e., Rs.10,000/- with interest at 20.13% from the date of the maturity and Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint along with such other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 24-06-1997 an amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party for a period of 4 years for a maturity value of Rs.10,000/- and in token of the said deposit the opposite party issued F.D.R. No.C 45110000432 dated 24-06-1997 and a temporary receipt bearing No.6934 dated 24-06-1997. On maturity the complainant has sent the original F.D.R. receipt to the opposite party under letter dated 05-03-2001 and the opposite party acknowledged it vide acknowledgement dated 15-03-2001 enclosing there too an order of the Company Law Board dated 29-02-2000 and also another letter dated 01-02-2002. Thereafter the opposite party kept quiet and did not arrange the due amounts and the conduct of the opposite party in avoiding the due payment is amounting to deficiency of service and caused mental agony and suffering and driven the complainant to the Forum redressal.
3. Inspite of the service of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party neither turned up to the proceedings nor made any contest to the complainant’s case disowning of its liability and thus remained exparte.
4. The complainant in support of its case relied upon the documentary record marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case and the documents.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in its defaultive conduct of nonpayment of the mature amount and thereby his entiteness to the reliefs claimed for?
6. The Ex.A2 is the attested Xerox copy of the F.D.R. No.C45110000432 dated 24-06-1997 issued to the complainant by the opposite party receiving Rs.5,000/- the render envisages to pay the said amount with interest on 24-03-2001 as Rs.10,000/-. Its original was said to have been submitted to the opposite party by the complainant duly discharging it for the payment of the mature amount. The Ex.A3 the letter dated 05-03-2001 of the complainant to the opposite party envisages the surrender of the original F.D.R. to the opposite party by the complainant for the payment of the mature amount by the opposite party. Ex.A1 is the temporary receipt dated 24-06-1997 issued to the complainant as the Customer copy in token of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. The Ex.A4 is an acknowledgement letter dated 15-03-2001 of the opposite party issued to the complainant acknowledging the receipt F.D.R. sent by the complainant. The factum in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 was not denied by the opposite party and as the said material is reiterated in the complainant sworn affidavit the factum envisaged in those exhibits is remaining conclusively established as to the privy of the complainant with the opposite party on account of the said deposit and the liability of the opposite party to fulfill with the commitment as to the payment of the mature amount as stipulated in the Ex.A2.
7. When a Company or a firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and depositor is a consumer as per the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Rajee -Vs- Amog Industries and another reported in 1993 CPR Page 345.
8. The Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in sanchayani Savings and Investments (India) Limited -Vs- Vatsala Baba Saheb Gaikward reported in I (2003) CPJ Page 260 holds the Financial Institutions deficiency in its service in not honouring he commitment, when amount under various deposits with accrued benefits are not released to the depositors. In the light of the above two decisions the conduct of the opposite party in not paying the mature amount to the complainant as stipulated under the Ex.A2 is amounting to a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party enabling the complainant to seek his redressal under the provisions of the C.P. Act.
9. The Ex.A4 acknowledgement letter of the opposite party besides acknowledging the receipt of the F.D.R., of the complainant which matures on 24-03-2001 for an amount of Rs.10,000/.- expresses its intention to pay the due amount of the depositor as per the Company Law Board Order dated 29-02-2000. The copy of the said order dated 29-02-2000 in Ex.A6 says the deposits of Rs.5,000/- has to be paid along with interest in 5 months from the date of the maturity or from the date of Company Law Board Order which ever is later and the said amount has to be paid in single installment. The complainant F.D.R., matures on 24-03-2001. The order of the Company Law Board dated to 29-02-2000. But there is not material on record to the effect that the said due mature amount of the complainant’s F.D.R., was paid either within 5 months from the date of the maturity or from the date of the Company Law Board Order as stipulated above. But on the other hand from the Ex.A5 letter dated 01-02-2000 of the opposite party to the complainant the former appears to be not in a position to pay the amounts due to its various in abilities mentioned there under. Further as per the decision of the Honourable A.P. High Court in the Prudential Capital Market, Calcutta -Vs- The State of A.P. Department of Law and others reported in 2000 (5) ALT Page 465 the provisions of the R.B.I. Act or the Companies Act do not either expressly or impliedly bars the jurisdiction of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act from entertaining applications by the depositors raising the Consumer dispute claiming the repayment of the deposit made from non banking Finance Company as the remedy under the C.P. Act is an additional remedy and not in derivation of the remedy available to approach the Company Law Board under the provisions of the R.B.I. Act the intendment of which is to protect the man where the remedy under ordinary Law is illusory. Therefore the depositor may approach either the Consumers Forum or the Company Law Board and hence the remedy available under the C.P. Act seems to be not taken away either by the R.B.I. Act or by the Companies Act. As the above remedy is available to the depositor and not to the non banking Financing Company there appears no justifiable excuse in the conduct of the opposite party in not repaying the mature amount to the complainant taking shelter under the Company Law Board Proceedings in Ex.A6 and in fact not complying with any stipulations contained therein even. Hence in the circumstances of the case the conduct of the opposite party in not complying either with the liability under the Ex.A2 or the stipulations on the Company Law Board order as to the mode of the payment in any true spirit and sense, so far also exposing the deficient conduct of the opposite party towards the obligation of the repayment of the mature amount to the complainant. Therefore, there appears every justification to the complainant in approaching the Forum seeking the reliefs under the C.P. Act for realization of the amounts from the opposite party arising out of the deficient service conduct of the opposite party to the complainant.
10. Even though the complainant has made out his cause of action against the opposite party the further point remaining for the consideration is to what releifs the complainant is justified in the exigencies of the case for being ordered against the opposite party.
11. No stipulation or the condition appears in the documentary record adduced by the complainant obligating the opposite party to pay the contractual rate of interest to the matured amount remain overdue as the stipulation in the Ex.A2 says interest will cease on the maturity of the deposit unless the contract for renewal of the deposit is made a fort night before due date along with the fresh application form. Hence there appears no justification in the claim of the complainant for the contractual rate of interest of 20.13% from the date of the maturity till realization of the said amount. But as the opposite party as with held the maturity amount which if would have been paid to the complainant at its due date would have earned interest on deposit with bank. Hence the complainant shall be entitled to the bank rate of interest at 9% per annum on the mature amount for the overdue period. The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the costs and mental agony which appears to be justifiable in the circumstances of the case.
12. Hence, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the mature amount of Rs.10,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the maturity along with Rs.1,000/- towards the mental agony and costs, within a month to the receipt of this order, in default the opposite party shall be liable to pay the awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of the default till realization of the entire amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of January, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER RESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Temporary receipt dated 24-06-1997 issued by opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2 Attested copy of FDR No.C45110000432 issued by opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3 Office copy letter dated 05-03-2001 addressed by complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A4 Acknowledgement dated 15-03-2001 issued by opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A5 Letter dated 01-02-2002 addressed by opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6 Company Law Board Order dated 29-02-2000.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER RESIDENT MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
