This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 08.03.2010 in the presence of Sri K.S. Reddy, advocate for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member :- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on the opposite parties for payment of Rs.1,08,000/- towards refund of dividend, Rs.13,500/- towards face value and subsequent interest, compensation and legal expenses.
The brief facts of complaint are as follows:
The complainant is Smt Kayathi Rama Devi W/o Saida Reddy is resident of Guntur. The 1st opposite party is M/s. Viswam Agros Private Limited is a company registered under companies Act. The 2nd opposite party is Sri Majeti Papa Rao, Managing Director, M/s.Viswam Agros Private Limited., who is responsible for day to day affairs of OP1 company.
The opposite parties offered units for sale to public to believe that a sum of Rs.12,000/- as ‘Dividend’ at the end of 10th year for each unit with a face value of Rs.1500/-. The complainant trusted the opposite parties and purchased 9 units at the face value of Rs.1500/- each on 10-01-97. According to the bond the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards dividend and Rs.13,500/- towards face value of the units altogether Rs.1,21,500/- as on 01-01-07.
After the due date the said company did not make any payment in this regard. The complainant made several requests personally and through elders. The 2nd opposite party avoided even to come into contact with the complainant. The complainant issued a registered legal notice on 10-08-09 calling upon both the opposite parties to repay the
Amount due, along with interest w.e.f. 02-01-07. The notice given was not received by the opposite parties. Non payment of scheduled amount is deemed as deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
The complainant filed her affidavit in support of her case and marked documents vide Exs.A-1 to A-3. Ex.A-1 is the Unit Holder Certificate, which reveals that the complainant had purchased nine units offered by the OP2 company and Exs.A-2 and A-3 are notices given by the complainant counsel which were not received by opposite parties 1 and 2 as per the endorsement made by the postal authority ‘not claimed’. This proves that the opposite parties having knowledge about pendency of case, deliberately evaded to receive notices.
After filing of this case the Forum sent notices to opposite party but they refused to receive the same. Therefore, opposite parties 1 and 2 are set exparte.
The evidence on record sufficiently prove the case of complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed in part as indicated below:
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the maturity value of Rs.1,21,500/- (Rs.1,08,000/- as dividend and Rs.13,500/- towards face value) along with interest @9% p.a., from 02-01-07 till the date of realisation.
- The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses.
- The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount ordered in item No.2 shall carry interest @9% p.a., till the date of reaslisation.
Typed to my dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 11th day of March, 2010.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No oral evidence is adduced on either side
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Certificate of Unit b.No.412/1118 with Units No.546
to 554 and Folio No.786.
Ex.A-2/10-10-09 O/c of registered notice issued to the respondents. Ex.A-3 Returned registered postal letters.
For Opposite parties: NIL
Sd/-XXX
PRESIDENT
