COMPLAINT FILED ON: 10.08.2011

DISPOSED ON: 31.10.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

^{31st    OCTOBER - 2011}

  PRESENT :-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                             PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                 MEMBER                   

                     SRI.M.MUNIYAPPA                          MEMBER

       COMPLAINT NO. 1533/2011

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,  MEMBER

          This is a Complaint filed U/S. 12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.30,000/- being the matured value of the Teak Bond along with interest at 18% p.a. and compensation and cost on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

2.      After registration of the complaint notice is sent to O.P. Inspite of service of notice O.P. remained absent. Hence OP is  placed exparte.

3.      The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed  affidavit evidence and produced documents.

4.      Heard from complainant side.

5.      We have gone through the complaint averments, documents produced and unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant.  The complainant invested Rs.10,000/- with O.P. being Managing Director of Guru Teak Investment towards purchase of teak tree in the first week of February 2002.  O.P. after receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant executed a Teak Bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- dated 7/2/2002 bearing No.  SMG 76867 with maturity date as 7/2/2011 and issued a receipt bearing No.80893 dated 7/2/2002 acknowledging receipt of amount. O.P. has also issued a cheque bearing No.007720 dated 7/2/2011 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- infavour of the Complainant.  After maturity date Complainant approached O.P. several times at their branch office at Shimoga as well as Head office at Bangalore requesting refund of maturity amount of Rs.30,000/-.  Though O.P. assured to settle the amount as early as possible but failed to refund the amount.  On 18/5/2011 complainant got issued legal notice calling upon O.P. to refund the amount within 15 days.  Inspite of service of notice there is no response.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced.  The very fact of O.P. remaining exparte leads us draw to an inference that O.P. admits all the allegations made by the complainant.  There is no justification on the part of O.P. to with held the amount even after the maturity.  Hence it becomes clear that O.P. has accepted Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and issued teak bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with a maturity date as 7/2/2011, but failed to pay the matured value to the complainant after maturity date  failed to reply to the legal notice  inspite of service of the same.  This act of O.P. neither paying the amount not replying to the legal notice amounts to deficiency in service.  On its part under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for payment of Rs.30,000/- being the maturity value of teak bond along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 8/2/2011 to till the date of payment and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following  

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund Rs.30,000/- being matured value of the teak bond to the complainant together with interest  at 12% p.a. from  8/2/2011 till realisation and pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.