Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

532/2005

J.Revathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager Bajaj Capital Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.Chenchurama Reddy

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   22.09.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   28.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.532/2005

TUESDAY THIS  28^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

 

Smt. J. Revathi,

W/o. A.R. Jayakumar,

NO.44/19A Basuvian Street (Lane),

Old Washermanpet,

Chennai 600 021.                                             .. Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                        ..Vs..

1.  The Regional Manager,

Bajaj Capital Limited,

19, Wellington Plaza,

NO.190, Annasalai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2.  Morepen Laboratories Ltd.,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

No.416 Anthriksh Bhawan,

22, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi 110 001.                                          ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. A.Chenchurama Reddy.  

Counsel for the opposite party-1     :  Exparte.

Counsel for the opposite party-2     :   M/s. Puzhal

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  pay fixed deposit matured amount of Rs.11,146/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in 2^nd opposite party company for 12 months through the 1^st opposite party vide cheque No.791040, dated 7.6.2002 drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai 21.  The above fixed deposit receipt matured on 8.6.2003.   The complainant surrendered Original fixed  deposit receipt of the 2^nd opposite party well in advance to the 1^st opposite party after duly signing over the revenue stamp as to enable the 1^st opposite party to arrange for the repayment of the matured amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt. 

2.        The 1^st opposite party issued receipt dated 27.5.2003, bearing No.11564, duly acknowledged the fixed deposit receipt from the complainant.   However the complainant has not received the matured amount covered by the above Fixed deposit receipt even though 22 months have passed.  The complainant’s countless representations, reminders, requisitions directly and also through her counsel to the 1^st opposite party and to the 2^nd opposite party fetched no result.  

3.     The complainant is very much pained on account of the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties herein in not complying with the justifiable demand of the complainant.    That on account of willful, wanton and negligent act of the 1t opposite party in not sending the fixed deposit receipt to Morepen Laboratory Ltd., the complainant has already undergone excruciating mental agony, irreparable loss and hardship.  The complainant herein submits that the 1^st opposite party alone is liable for the repayment of the fixed deposit receipt amount.  

4.      There is gross deficiency in the service of the  1^st opposite party as a broker.   On account of deficiency in service by 1^st opposite party as a broker, the complainant is put to monetary loss of Rs.11,146/- apart from unbearable mental agony and torture.  The complainant caused lawyer’s notice on the 1^st opposite party by notice dated 25.3.2005 by registered post and also by courier service.  The 1^st opposite party received the said lawyer’s notice dated 25.3.2005 on 23.6.2005 and failed to comply with the said lawyer’s notice.    The complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

5.     Again he had issued a lawyer’s notice dated 2.9.2003 to the opposite parties herein requesting them to return the fixed deposit matured amount of Rs.11,146/-.  The opposite parties have not complied with the request of the complainant.  Hence the complaint. 

6.     Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party-3 is called absent and set exparte.

7. Written Version of  2^nd opposite party is   in brief as follows:

       The allegation made in the complaint are all denied.  This opposite party had filed a petition under section 39(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 being Company Petition No.5 / 2004.   The said petition was for reviving the opposite party-2 and hence for settlement of various claims by various creditors under the supervision of the company  court.   

8.       After preliminary hearing, the company court was pleased to stay proceedings of all recovery cases all over the country against the opposite party company.   The Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to grant an interim stay of all the legal proceedings in reference to all the matters pending in various courts and forums across the country against the opposite party company.   On the basis of the above mentioned orders, various Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums have sine die stayed pending matters of Morepen Laboratories Ltd.  Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

9.     In the mean time the petition filed by the opposite party in CMP 372/2006 to stay of all further proceedings in this matter and the same was dismissed for default on 4.8.2009.  Subsequently the opposite party-1 was remained set exparte.

10.    Though the opposite party-2 was appeared before this forum but inspite of sufficient opportunities and time given the opposite party-2 has not come forward neither to file his proof affidavit nor his written arguments and thereby the same was closed by this forum.

11.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  

12.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

13. Point No.1:-

        In respect of allegation made in the complaint against the opposite party, on careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in 2^nd opposite party company for 12 months through the 1^st opposite party by means of cheque No.791040, dated 7.6.2002 drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai-21 and the matured on 8.6.2003.    The fixed deposit receipt is marked as Ex.A2.  It is further learnt that when the complainant  surrendered original fixed deposit receipt Ex.A2 of the 2^nd opposite party well in advance to the 1^st opposite party after duly signing over the revenue stamp as to enable the 1^st opposite party to arrange for the repayment of the matured amount and for which the 1^st opposite party issued receipt dated 27.5.2003 which is marked as Ex.A1,  but the complainant has not received the matured amount. Even though 22 months have passed as on date of filing of this complaint and in spite of repeated representations, reminders, requests made by the complainant but not favourable answered  by the opposite parties and thereby the opposite parties caused deficiency in service of the opposite party-1 as a broker.  Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 to the opposite party-1 and the same was acknowledged.   But the opposite parties have not come forward to comply the demands of the complainant.  Hence the complainant constrained to file the complaint.

14.      While being so at the time of filing of written arguments the complainant  submitted that the 2^nd opposite party sent a demand draft dated 13.7.2009 bearing No.761242 drawn at State Bank of Indore, Broadway, Chennai drawn infavour of the complainant for a sum of R.15,451/-.  The 2^nd opposite party has not filed any calculation memo to state how they arrived at the above figure i.e. Rs.15,451/-.   However the complainant received the said D.D from the forum by endorsing without prejudice to the merits of the case on 1.9.2009. 

15.      In such circumstances as per the prayer sought by the complainant the deposit matured amount is of Rs.11,146/- subsequent interest from the matured date of the complainant.  If it is so from the opposite party-2 the complainant received  demand draft of Rs.15,451/-  as per calculation placed before this forum by the complainant is that the total amount including the interest of matured amount comes to Rs.20,063/- and thereby the balance interest amount of Rs.4612/-  has to be paid by the opposite party-2.  If it is so, in order to contest the above said amount the opposite party did not turn up before this forum and therefore it can be presumed that there is no objection  the above said amount.  

16.     At the outset it is pertinent to note that the opposite party-1 has not chosen to appear before this forum on receipt of notice and therefore he was set exparte.   In respect of opposite party-2, though he has appeared before this forum but he did not turn up subsequent hearing of proceedings.   Moreover, after filing of complaint only the opposite party has come forward to sent demand draft of Rs.15,451/- through post to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant herein.  In such circumstances though the opposite party-2 has complied the demand to some extent but it is only after filing of the complaint.   Therefore it is crystal clear that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the same has been proved by the complainant by means of acceptable evidence.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

17.  POINT No.2 :-

        As per decision arrived in point No.1, the considering the payment of Rs.15,451/- by the opposite party-2 by means of demand draft and sent through post to the complainant and as per the admission of the complainant‘s written arguments the complainant is entitled for remaining balance interest of  Rs.4612/- from the opposite party-2 and also reasonable compensation with cost from the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Thus the point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite party-2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4612/- (Rupees Four thousand six hundred and twelve only) towards balance of interest amount and both the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of them  and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.        

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  28^th  day  of  February  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         27.5.2003   - Copy of repayment ack. receipt.

Ex.A2-         8.6.2003     - Copy of Fixed deposit receipt.

Ex.A3-         2.9.2003     - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4-         25.3.2005   - Copy of legal notice.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.