Before the District 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 this the 15th day of March, 2004
C.D.No.202/2003
T.J.Thirumalaiah,
S/o. T.Venkatswamy,
H.No.18-77,
Sangaiah Peta,
Nandikotkur (V),
Kurnool Dist.
Now resident at
D.No.41/379,
Kothapeta,
District Court Road,
Kurnool . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri .K.Prabhakr
-Vs-
The Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
H.No.1-2-597/12,
Valmiki Nagar,
Lower Tank Bank Road,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This complaint of the complainant is filed Under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking direction against the opposite party to pay her the maturity amount of RS.20, 000/- with 16.58% interest per annum from the date of maturity i.e 27.2.2003, RS.10, 000/- towards compensation and RS.2, 000/- towards costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complaint is that the opposite party is the registered finance company represented by its Managing Director. The said company invited deposits from the public and promised prompt repayment of double the deposited amount after 54 months on maturity date i.e 27.2.2003. The complainant being attracted by the said scheme deposited RS. 10,000/- on 27.8.1998 and the opposite party had to pay double the deposited amount RS.20,000/- on maturity date i.e 27.2.2003. The opposite party also issued a Fixed Deposit receipt in favour of the complainant bearing No. C 5442000216 dated 27.8.1998 and the date of maturity mentioned in the receipt as 27.2.2003. The complainant after the maturity date approached the opposite party by submitting the original FDR for payment of maturity amount but the opposite party evaded making any payment even after receiving the original FDR. The complainant there after made several approaches and demands to the branch office of the opposite party in Kurnool, which was closed later, being vexed with the conduct of the opposite party, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt1.12.2003. The conduct of the opposite party in not paying the amount held deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to the maturity amount with interest also at the rate of 16.58% from the date of maturity.
3. In support of the complainant's contentions the complainant side relied upon the (1) Xerox copy of FDR issued by opposite party dated 27.8.1998 (2) Office copy of legal notice dated 1.12.2003 (3) postal receipt of legal notice (4) Postal acknowledgement of legal notice (5) Computerised Postal receipt of registered post (6) Xerox copy of extract of Company Law Board Order dt 29.2.2000 and (7) translation of Company Law Board Order dated 29.2.2000 and they are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 for the purpose of their appreciation. The complainant also filed her sworn affidavit in re-iterating her complaint averments.
4. The opposite party though received the notice of the Forum did not choose to file any objection statement and the case is proceeded exparte and on the basis of the material placed on record.
5. Hence the point for consideration to what relief the complainant is entitled to?:
6. The Exhibit A.1 the attested xerox copy of the F.D.R. No.C5442000216 dated 27.8.1998 envisag the issual of their original to the complainant on receipt of RS.10,000/- for a period of 54 months with a stipulation for payment of RS. 20,000/- on the date of maturity i.e. on 27.22003accruing the interest @ 16.58%. The exhibit A.2 is the legal notice issued by the advocate of complainant to the opposite party and the opposite party intimated of its approach already to the company law board for reschedulement of the time frame for the clearance of the public deposits. The original of the Ex. A.1 was said to have been surrendered to the opposite party by the complainant on their maturity for the payment. Thus the facts in Ex.A.1 in the absence of any contra material is conclusively establishing the privy of the complainant with the opposite party on account of the said deposit in Ex. A.1 and the liability of the opposite party to fulfil the commitment stipulated therein as to the payment of the matured amount as stipulated in the said fixed deposit.
7. When a company or a firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and the Depositor is a consumer as per the decision of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Ragee -Vs- Amogh Industries and another reported in 1993 CPR page 345.
8. The Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in the Sanchayani saving Investment (India) Limited -Vs- Vatsala Baba Saheb Gaikevad reported in 2003 (1) CPJ 260 holds the Financial Institutions deficiency in its service in not honouring the 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 A.1 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 opposite party in its approach to the Company Law Board for a re schedulement of the time frame for the clearance of the public deposits did not made any progress towards the payment of the mature amounts of the complainant’s F.D.R which matured on 27.2.2003. In the absence of any endeavour of the opposite party either for making any payment or for the re-schedulement of any time frame for the payment of the public deposits what appears is that the opposite party in postponing its liability on some pretext or other.
10. Further, as per the decision of the Hon’ble 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 465 the provisions of the R.B.I Act or the Companies Act do not either expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act from entertaining applications by the Depositors raising the Consumer dispute claiming the re-payment 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 re-paying the matured amount to the complainant. Hence in the circumstances of the case the conduct of the opposite party in not making any endeavor for re-schedulement of time frame for clearance or of the public deposit so far also exposing the deficiency conduct of the opposite party towards the obligation of the re-payment of the matured 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 realisation of the due amounts from the opposite party arising out the deficient service conduct of the opposite party to the complainant.
11. 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 reliefs the complainant is justified in the exigencies of the case for being ordered against the opposite party.
12. 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 over due as the stipulation in the Ex .A.1 says interest will cease on the maturity of the deposit unless the contract for renewal of the deposit is made a for-night before due date along with the fresh application from. Hence there appears no justification in the clam of the complainant for the contractual rate of interest of @ 16.58 from the date of the maturity till realisation 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.
13. Hence, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the mature amount of RS.20, 000/- under the said deposit with 9% interest from the date of the maturity along with RS.1,000/- towards the mental agony and costs, within a month of the receipt of this order, indefaul the opposite party shall be liable to pay the awarded amount with 12% interest from the date of the default till realisation of the entire amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation, Corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open
Court this the 15th day of March, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
