BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 10^th APRIL 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB.                    ……..     MEMBER

CC Nos.  213/2010, 214/2010, 216/2010, 218/2010, 219/2010, 221/2010, 215/2010, 217/2010 & 220/2010

  (By Sri. K.P. Murali, Adv. for Complainants in all the Complaints)

V/s.

     (By Sri. Sama Rangappa, Adv. for Opposite  Parties in all the Complaints)

ORDER

By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

Since all these Complaints are between different Complainants and the same Ops regarding similar matters, all these cases are taken-up together and common order is passed.  Original Order is kept in CC No.213/2010 and copies are ordered to be kept in the remaining Complaints.

2.       Herein afterwards Complainant in Complaint No.213/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 1, in Complaint No.214/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 2, in Complaint No.216/2010 will be referred to as Complainant No. 3, in Complaint No.218/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 4, in Complaint No.219/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 5, in Complaint No.221/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 6, in Complaint No.215/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 7, in Complaint No.218/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 8 and in Complaint No.220/2010 will be referred as Complainant No. 9 and the Opposite Parties are referred as OPs.

3.       The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainants made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1.40,787/- in CC 213/2010, Rs.1,48,857/- in Complaint No.214/2010, Rs.1,40,787/- in Complaint No.216/2010, Rs.1,40,787/- in Complaint No.218/2010, Rs.1,48,857/- in Complaint No.219, Rs.1,40,787/- in Complaint No.221/2010, Rs.2,29,557/- in Complaint No.215/2010, Rs.2,29,557/- in Complaint No.217/2010 and Rs.2,29,557/- in Complaint No.220/2010 are necessary.

Complainant No. 1 had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 01.07.1999, Complainant No. 2 had deposited  Rs.49,000/- on 13.12.2000, Complainant No. 3 had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 07.07.1999, Complainant No. 4 had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 23.06.1999, Complainant No. 5 had deposited Rs.49,000/- on 13.12.2000, Complainant No. 6 had deposited Rs.45,000/- on 07.07.1999, Complainant No. 7 had deposited Rs.49,000/- on 18.11.1999 & Rs.40,000/- on 26.08.2000, Complainant No. 8 had deposited Rs.49,000/- on 12.10.1999 & Rs.40,000/- on 26.08.2000 and the Complainant No. 9 had deposited Rs.49,000/- on 10.08.1999 & Rs.40,000/- on 26.08.2000 with the Ops and they have agreed to pay certain interest @ 18.5% P.A. and agreed to pay periodical interest every month commencing from 5^th of the following month.  According to the terms of the agreement, for one year, no amount should be withdrawn by the Complainants.  From 2005 no amount has been paid.  Complainants approached Ops several times.  In spite of that, Ops have neither paid the principal nor the interest.  Hence the Complaints after issue of notice.

4.       In brief version of the OP are:-

Keeping the amount and execution of agreement are admitted.  On 01.02.2007 Complainant-1 has received Rs.3,23,000/-, Complainant-2 has received Rs.3,23,000/-, Complainant-3 has received Rs.3,23,000/-, Complainant-4 has received 3,23,000/-, Complainant-5 has received Rs.3,23,000/-, Complainant-6 has received Rs.3,23,000/-, Complainant-7 has received Rs.1,78,000/-, Complainant-8 has received Rs.1,78,000/- and Complainant-9 has received Rs.1,78,000/- and executed Receipts stating that they have received full & final settlement of the whole amount.  Hence complaints be dismissed.

5.       To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed their respective affidavits.  As the Complainants’ Counsel was absent, heard the Ops.

6.       The points that arise for our consideration are as under:

POINTS     

          (A)     Whether there is deficiency in service ?

          (B)     What order ?

7.       Our findings on the above points are as under:

          (A)     Negative

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

8.       Pleadings of the parties are summarized supra and the same be read herein again.  Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that Complainants 1 to 6 had deposited Rs.45,000/-, Rs.49,000/-, Rs.45,000/-, Rs.45,000/-, Rs.49,000/- & Rs.45,000/- respectively and Complainant No. 7 to 9 have deposited Rs.89,000/- each with the Ops.  It is also an admitted fact that an agreement in this regard has been entered into between the parties.  It is also an admitted fact that parties are governed by the terms of the agreement.  Accordingly, certain interest has to be paid by the Ops to the Complainants.

9.       In all these cases, Complainants’ say that they have not been paid any money from 2005.  That means, cause of action for the Complainants arose in 2005.  But, these Complaints are filed in the year 2010.  Hence, it is hopelessly barred by limitation. When limitation starts to run and it will never stops.  Merely issuing notice to the Ops will not enlarge limitation.  No application for condonation of delay is also filed.  Hence, Complaints are barred by time as rightly contended.

10.     Further, it is seen that the Complainants have executed Receipts in the year 2007 itself i.e., on 01.02.2007 stating that they have received Rs.3,23,000/- and Rs.1,78,000/- in full & final settlement of their claim against the Ops and executed Receipts. Further FD Bonds have been returned to the Ops.  That means, entire amount has been paid by the Ops to the Complainants and nothing is due.  There is no explanation with respect to all these Receipts and the FD Bond which are with the Ops.  FD Bonds should have been with the Complainants if the amount is not discharged or paid.  Hence, under these circumstances, Complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands as rightly contended.  If the Complainants are entitled to any other amounts as per the agreement, they have to move to Civil Court wherein detailed pleadings, detailed evidence in depth, cross examination and scrutiny of evidence in depth has tobe made.  That cannot be done in summary way.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service.  Hence we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaints are dismissed.

2.       Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.

3.       Original Order shall be kept in Complaint No.213/2010 and copies thereof in the remaining Complaints.

4.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th of April 2012)

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS