Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/16/25

Sri. Shrikanth Bhat, K. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. Unitech Ltd and Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. G. Narayana Hebbar

03 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 01.01.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 03.08.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.25/2016

DATED THIS THE 03^RD AUGUST OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

 

Sri.Shrikanth Bhat.K,

S/o Sham Bhat,

Aged about 51 years,

R/at no.597, 12^th cross,

1^st phase, 1^st stage,

Chandra layout,

Bengaluru-72.

 

By Adv.Sri.G.Narayana Hebbar     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. The Managing Director M/s.Unitech ltd.,

Registered office at 6,

Community Center,

Saket, New Delhi – 1100117.

 

2. The Manager,

Fixed Deposit Division

Flat no.136, 2^nd floor,

Udyog Vihar, Phase no.1, Gurgoan-122016.

Haryana.

 

3. The Manager,

M/s.Unitech ltd.,

Bengaluru Branch,

At C-1&2, Jyothi Complex,

134/1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru-01.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

MEMBER: SMT.ROOPA.N.R

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1, 2 & 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay the principal amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 20.06.14; to pay the future interest at 2% per month; to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he had invested a sum of Rs.75,000/- with Ops for which Ops had issued FDR no.1202774, Folio no.1234379 the maturity date was 19.06.14. Ops had agreed to pay interest at 11.5% p.a. to the said amount. Since the said fixed deposit was mature, Complainant had approached the Op.no.3 in the month of June 2014. At this juncture, Op.no.3 had requested the Complainant that Op.no.3 will pay the amount along with interest within 2 weeks, but Op.no.3 have failed to keep up the promise of payment. Thereafter the Complainant repeatedly visited the office of Op.no.3 and demanded the amount, Ops had postponed the payment by one or the other pretext. The Complainant had sent an email to Op.no.3 on 12.10.14 demanding the amount with future interest. For the said email also there was no positive response from Op.no.3. As such Ops had utilized the above said amount for commercial purposes and Op had agreed to pay 2% per month as interest for delayed payment. Ops have not paid the principal nor the interest till to 04.02.15. The Complainant having no other alternative, he sent a legal notice dtd.04.02.15 by RPAD for demanding the Ops to pay the principal amount along with interest. The said notice duly served on Ops. There was no response from the Ops. Hence, he prayed to allow the complaint directing the Ops to refund the principal amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest and other reliefs.

 

3. The notice has been duly served on Op.no.1 to 3, but they did not appear before this forum. Hence placed exparte.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A10 and also filed written arguments which is nothing but the repetition of facts stated in the complaint. Heard.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  In the forgoing paragraphs, we briefly stated the contents of the complaint. It is the specific case of the Complainant that, he invested a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of M/s.Unitech ltd., on 20.12.12, for which Ops had issued FDR no.1202774, account no.1234379, the maturity date was 20.12.13 and Ops had issued fixed deposit receipt dtd.26.12.12. In support of this, he also produced fixed deposit receipt marked as Ex-A1. Further by looking in to the documents marked as Ex-A2 to A4, it is clear that, the Complainant renewed the fixed deposit from 20.12.13 to 19.06.14 and the Complainant was already received the interest  of Rs.9,094/- and Rs.4,313/- through two cheques from the Op as interest at the rate of 11.5% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.75,000/-. Now the only grievance of the Complainant is that, even though the maturity is already over in respect of fixed deposit amount, Ops are not in a position to reimburse the principal sum of Rs.75,000/-. In this context, he sent an email to Ops as per Ex-A5 and also sent a letter as per Ex-A6 to settle the matter within 15 days on receipt of the notice. It seems that, no response by the Op. Though notice has been duly served on Op, it did not appear, hence placed exparte. Under such circumstances, non-appearance and non-filing of version, draw an adverse inference that, the Op has admit the claim of the Complainant in the light of the decision reported in 2018(1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters ltd., vs. Amankumar Garg, wherein it is held that “non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint.”

 

        8. At this stage, we have no other go except to direct the Op to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- being the fixed deposit amount, in the light of the decision reported in Sherry Leasing pvt. ltd. V Kamini Saigal, I (2014) CPJ 139 (NC), wherein it is held as under:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Banking and financial institutions services- fixed deposit receipts – deposition of amounts – payment on maturity denied – deficiency of service – District forum directed Op to pay Complainants the balance amount FDR after adjusting amount already paid along with interest – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision- No defence on behalf of petitioner before District forum on merits – No infirmity or illegality in impugned order.

 

          9. In the light of the decision cited supra, we are inclined to allow the complaint filed by the Complainant as the deficiency of service specifically proved by the Complainant. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

10. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.

 

          2. We direct Op.no.1 to 3 who jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/-, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. 

 

3. We also direct the Op.no.1 to 3 to realize the said amounts within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 03^rd August 2018).

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Shrikanth Bhat.K, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Fixed deposit receipt dtd.26.12.12
Ex-A2	Brochure
Ex-A3	Intimation of Op dtd.20.12.13 & 20.06.14
Ex-A4	Form 8
Ex-A5	Email of the Complainant dtd.12.10.14
Ex-A6	Legal notice dtd.04.02.15
Ex-A7	3 Postal receipts
Ex-A8	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A9	Postal complaints
Ex-A10	Settled reply dtd.18.08.15

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT