Adv.Ravi Susha, Member.
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
(2)
The complaint’s case is that the opposite parties unlawfully detained the fixed deposit amount in fixed deposits due to the first complainant and she had sustained loss of Rs.5,00,000/- being the total amount of fixed deposits.
The complainant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of February 2000 Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of December 2002 and Rs.20000/- in the month of February 2003 for a period of 3 years each from the date of deposit with first opposite party. The interest assured to the fixed deposits has been promptly paid by the first opposite party through second opposite party, his collection agent. On maturity of the 3 fixed deposit periods the first opposite party renewed the deposits unilaterally and the renewed fixed interest carries 11% interest per annum. On getting fixed deposit receipts it was noticed that the deposits were renewed in the name of K.Neelambaran. On enquiry the second opposite party, said that it is only a clerical mistake. Karina Neelambaran denoted as K.Neelambaran and had promised that it is to be rectified. But this promise was not materialized. The opposite parties paid the interest promptly and regularly to the first complainant.
During the month of September 2006 it is learnt that as there was serious difference of opinion between Managing Director and Directors. From October 2006 onwards the first complainant has not been receiving the monthly interest. In the meantime there appeared some media reports which adversely affect the opposite parties. Accordingly customers rushed to the opposite parties
(3)
demanding there fixed deposits. The complainant also one among them. The first opposite party told that there is no fixed deposit in the name of Karina Neelambaran, but only in the name of his husband K.Neelambaran. The second complainant also approached the first opposite party and tried to convince that he had never made any deposit with the first opposite party. The deposits were made by his wife Karina Neelambaran. Even then the first opposite party denied the repayment alleging that second complainant is having some outstanding liability with first opposite party. Actually he has no such liability. The first complainant is entitled to get back the fixed deposit amounts even before maturity deducting 2% pre- closure interest from the interest. As per fixed deposit receipt, the depositor is entitled to get 9% interest. Repeated requests, made by the complainant went in vain. The complainant’s approached the Forum seeking direction to opposite parties to refund of total amount of 3 deposits Rs.5,00,000/- along with compensation Rs.50000+ cost.
The opposite parties filed version contenting the allegations. The first complainant has nothing to do with the three deposits involved in the case and that she is not entitled to get it back. Second complainant is the depositor. The amount covered under the three deposits was attached by Hon’ble Civil Court in a civil case filed by the opposite parties for realization of Rs.5,00,000/- as the second complainant failed to repay the amount and discharge the liability created under the promissory note dtd:19.12.03 which was executed by the second complainant, his brother Damodaran and his elder brother’s son Ullas. The second complainant and
(4)
his brother Damodaran undertook to stand as co-obligations/guarantors for the prompt discharge of the liability created by Ullas availing a loan for Rs.3,00,000/- from M/s.Transworld credit and investment company Ltd which was a sister concern of the first opposite party and defaulted in repayment. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complaint is false and frevalous. The first opposite party is entitled to get compensation from the complainants.
The complainants filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exts.P1 to P3 marked. Even though sufficient opportunities has been given, the opposite party remained absent. Hence set exparte. DW1 was not cross-examined.
As the opposite parties remained absent and failed to adduce evidence, we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
(2) Compensation and cost.
Points (1) and (2)
In this case an exparte order was passed by CDRF, Kollam directed the first opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being the total amount of three deposits made by the complainant with Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs to the first complainant. Against this order the first opposite party filed appeal before the
(5)
Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground that due to a mistake on the part of the counsel of the first opposite party in noting the posting date has resulted in passing an exparte order and prayed for the opportunity to contest the case before the Forum. After hearing the appeal the Hon’ble CDRC passed an order set-aside the Forum’s order and remanded the matter to the Forum on condition that the appellant deposits an amount of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant before the Forum within one month and the Forum is directed to give notice to all the parties and permit all the parties to adduce evidence if any.
As per the order, Forum issued notice to all the parties. Opposite party deposit the cost of Rs.5000/-. The case was posted to 04.01.12 for the appearance of all the parties. On that day complainant represented but opposite parties were absent. On the subsequent posting dates 24.01.12, 04.08.12, 17.08.12 and 06.09.12 also the opposite parties were absent. On 06.09.12 also the opposite parties were absent. Hence on 06.09.12 the complaint was heard and posted the case for disposal.
In these circumstances we are again constrained to pass an exparte order against the first opposite party.
(6)
PW1 was not cross-examined so far. Through PW1, Ext.P1 to P3 were marked. So long as PW1 is not cross examined, the evidence adduced by PW1 remained unchallenged. Even after getting a second opportunity as per the order of the State Commission, the opposite party did not turn up to adduce their evidence. Hence from the available evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and the complaint is entitled to get relief.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to refund the total sum of Rs.5 lakhs covered by Ext.P1 series to the complainant with interest @ 12% from October 2006 ( from which first opposite party did not give monthly interest to the complainant) with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. The order has to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 19th day of September 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
(7)
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Kareena Neelambaran
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt
P2 - Reply notice for advocate notice sent by
opposite parties.
P3 - Postal Acknowledgment
