Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER IN C.C.273 TO 277/06 (5 COMPLAINTS) <br /> <br /> 1. These 5 complaints are disposed of by this common order, as the question of fact and law involved in all these complaints are same. <br /> 2. Notices were issued to Opposite parties 1 and 2 by RPAD and were served in the prison where they are held. They remained absent. The service was held sufficient, and both Opposite parties were placed exparte, as no arrangement was made by them to defend the complaints. <br /> 3. The complainants have invested with the Opposite parties amounts as shown against their names:-<br /> Sl. No. Complaint No. Complainant Date of invest-ment Amount invested Total amount Cheque amount<br /> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7<br /> 1 CC 273/06 Chandrashekar 29.11.04<br /> 16.08.04 1,00,000<br /> 2,00,000 3,00,000 13,480<br /> 2 CC 274/06 Mahadev 07.06.04<br /> 07.05.05 25,000<br /> 20,000 45,000 <br /> 3 CC 275/06 Somashekar 22.11.04<br /> 16.06.04<br /> 16.06.04<br /> 09.08.04<br /> 19.07.04 2,00,000<br /> 50,000<br /> 50,000<br /> 1,00,000<br /> 1,00,000 5,00,000 21,580<br /> 4 CC 276/06 Annegowda 11.10.04<br /> 27.09.04 1,00,000<br /> 2,00,000 3,00,000 13,480<br /> 5 CC 277/06 Srikanth 03.01.05<br /> 24.02.05 20,000<br /> 30,000 50,000 2,230<br /> <br /> 4. No deposit receipt was issued by the Opposite parties though the receipts show that the money was received as investment. Further Opposite parties failed to pay either interest on the investment or refund the amount invested. Thereafter, Opposite parties issued cheques in the names of some Complainants for amounts shown against their name. All the cheques were dishonoured. The Opposite parties closed down their business as well. This act of the Opposite parties according to the Complainants, amount to deficiency in service. Hence, Complainants have prayed for allowing these Complaints with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of Rs.1,000/- each.<br /> 5. As O.P.1 and 2 have remained exparte, points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether complainants have proved that they have deposited the amount with O.P.1 and 2 as contended by them?<br /> 2. Whether complainants further proves that O.P.1 and 2 have failed to pay the interest or refund the deposits?<br /> 3. Whether such act of Opposite parties amount to deficiency in service?<br /> 4. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. Point no.1 to 3 : Affirmative.<br /> 2. Point no.4 : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. The receipts, which are issued by the Opposite parties in favour of the complainants is signed for and on behalf of “Viniv-inc” by an authorised signatory. From the receipts, it is clear that “Viniv-inc” has got main office at V.V.Puram, Bangalore, and branch office in Mysore. It is surprising to note that the receipts issued by O.P.1 and 2 does not disclose the fact that the amount was received as “Fixed deposit”. It does not mention even the rate of interest nor the tenure of investment. All such amounts are shown as received towards “Investment”. The cheques issued by the Opposite parties have returned dishonoured on the ground that their Account had been frozen. The receipts issued by the Opposite parties do not indicate existence of a contract between the parties for payment of interest at 18% p.a. over a fixed tenure. The complainants have not produced any other document to substantiate their contentions. It is not known whether the cheques issued were towards interest and if so for what period and at what rate. As Opposite parties have not contested the matter, we have to accept the contentions of the complainants, and conclude that the complainants have proved that they have invested the amounts, shown in column 5 of the schedule as deposit with Opposite parties 1 and 2. It is also stated in the affidavit that Opposite parties have neither paid the interest nor refunded the deposits. Such act amounts to deficiency in service. <br /> 8. Since, the Opposite parties have closed down their business, Complainants are entitled to receive back their investment with interest immediately. Further, as the Opposite parties have not mentioned the rate of interest and the tenure of deposit we feel 8% p.a. is reasonable interest and the money invested by the complainants may be treated as immediately repayable by the Opposite parties. By closing down the business all of a sudden without returning the Complainants’ investment, the Opposite parties have caused mental agony to the Complainants who invested their hard earned money with the Opposite parties. Hence, the Opposite parties are liable to pay additional interest at 4% p.a. on the investment made by the Complainants. Thus, the Opposite parties are liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the investment made by the Complainants.<br /> 9. Hence, point nos.1 to 4 are answered accordingly, and we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Common order is passed in all 5 cases as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. All these complaints are hereby allowed as follows:.<br /> 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainants, the amounts shown in coloumn No.6 of the schedule above, jointly and severely, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of investment till the date of payment with cost of Rs.1000 each.<br /> 3. Send a copy of this order in the name of Opposite parties 1 and 2 under COP and give a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the complainants.<br /> 4. Keep original order in C.C.273/06 and a copy each in the other files.<br />