BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

24^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the deposit amount of Rs.9,00,000/- along with quarterly interest due Rs.1,12,500/-, to pay penal rate of interest @ 18% for delayed payment till the date of actual payment, to pay incidentals of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards for mental agony and trauma undergoing.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant applied for the fixed deposits in the prescribed application form of OPs through authorized local broker M/s SMC Global Securities of OP at Bangalore and the receipt was delivered to the complainant residential address at Bangalore assuring to pay the interest amount every quarter on the first of following quarter and the repayment of matured amount would be made on the date of maturity and quarterly interest amounts would be paid regularly as per the ‘Terms and Conditions’ and as stipulated in the Acceptance of Deposit Rules, 1975.  The warrants for the repayment and for the interest shall be delivered at the complainant’s residential address well in time.  The details of the deposit are given below.

The above deposits were matured on the dates mentioned in the table.  The duly discharged FDRs were submitted by the complainant well in time for repayment and the same had been received by OP.  OP had defaulted payment of quarterly interest amount for several quarters as mentioned since dates mentioned in the table.  Two of cheques issued towards quarterly interest payable for the quarter ending 30.06.2015 for FDRs 1218507 and 1221719 are bounced on account of ‘Insufficient Funds’ in OPs Bank account.  The complainant has been reminding OP through e-mails and requesting to send repayment warrants without delay.  But till date the complainant has not received the repayment warrants.  Thus OP had failed to repay the matured deposit amount and quarterly interest for the deposits for several quarters in violation of “Companies (Acceptance of deposits) Rules 1975 and 2013” and the delay in repayment attracts penal rate of interest of 18% under clause-8A of said Rule 1975 and clause 28 of Rule 2013.  OP has violated clause 6.3 of 1975 and clause 24 of 2013 company (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules that states “The Company shall not reserve to itself directly or indirectly a right to alter, to the prejudice or disadvantage of the depositor, the terms and conditions of the deposit after it is accepted”.  Therefore the services of OP are unfair and spurious.

The OP is constantly and regularly followed up and reminded about the nonpayment of matured deposits.  The OP has sent e-mails.  Inspite of requests and reminders the OP had not effected repayment of matured deposit failing in his commitments and thereby causing inconvenience and loss to the complainant.

The OP is regulated and duty bound by “Companies (Acceptance of deposits) Rules 1975 and 2013” for the acceptance of deposits from the public and repayments and interest payments to depositors under the Companies Act 1956 and 2013 of the Central Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India.  OP is regulated and monitored by Government Agencies like Ministry / Department of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies and SEBI.  Hence, the OP is duty bound to return matured deposits on demand and pay quarterly interest regularly.  Inspite of repeated correspondence and reminders, the OPs failed to refund the matured deposit amount.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Under the circumstances, he has filed this complaint against OPs for appropriate relief.

3. After registration of the complaint, the notice has been served on OPs.  OPs failed to appear and were placed ex-parte.

4. So as to prove his case, Mr.A.K Ganeshan, being the complainant filed his affidavit evidence with written arguments and also produced certain documents.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged.  OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is the fixed deposit schemes brochure including terms and conditions.  Document No.2 is the application form/renewal form of complaint issued by OP.  Document No.3 is the statement of transactions which shows the cheques which has been given to the complainant by the OPs bounced on account of “Insufficient Funds” in his Bank account.  Document No.4 is the copy of “Companies (Acceptance of deposits) Rules 1975”.  Document No.5 & 6 are the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench dated 04.07.2016 and 14.05.2015 respectively against OPs.  Document No.7 are the copies FD receipts.

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is crystal clear that, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with OPs for the period of three years repayable along with the interest at the rate of 12.5%.  The receipts have been produced by the complainant.  After the maturity date the OPs failed to repay the matured amount and quarterly interest for the deposits.  Though the complainant reminded OP through e-mails and requested them to send repayment warrants and interest warrants but OP has not obliged.

8. The conduct of OPs in not refunding the deposit amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and interest on time amounts to deficiency of service.  The non refunding of interest and deposit amount must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  Therefore the OP is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant apart from refunding the deposit amount together with interest.  The complainant is a senior citizen and he has invested his hard earned savings into the fixed deposit schemes of OP to get some regular income to lead a normal retired life.  The OPs absolutely have no reason to withheld the payment of the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- also interest. 

9. The very fact of OPs not contesting the proceeding leads us to draw an inference that OPs are admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant and the documents produced.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to non-performance of the promise made by the OPs.  In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully proved deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, OPs shall be directed to refund the said deposit amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of maturity till the date of realization.  The OPs shall pay Rs.1,12,500/- being interest for the deposit period.  Further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and deficiency of service together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. 

10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs only) with quarterly interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of maturity till the date of realization.  The OPs shall pay Rs.1,12,500/- being interest for the deposit period.  Further OPs are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and trauma undergoing together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

 OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 24^th day of October 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT No.936/2016

Complainant                 -        Sri.A.K Ganesan,

Bangalore – 560090.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Party              -        1) The Managing Director,

Unitech Limited.,

New Delhi – 110017.

2) In-Charge, Unitech Ltd.,

(Bangalore Branch)

Bangalore-560001.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 28.09.2016.

1. Sri. A.K Ganesan

          OPs -       Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*