IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of June, 2017.
Filed on 13/01/2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) in
C.C.No.14/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Krishnakumar 1 Vitoba Bankers,
S/o Chellappan Pillai Vayalar, Cherthala
Puthenpurayil House Rep.by its Partner
C.M.C-15, Cherthala. Narasimha Pai, Vayalapuram
(By Adv.. Anilkumar) Thirumalabhagom PO,
Thuravoor South.
2 Sandhya N. Pai,
W/o Dileepkumar, Vitoba
Nivas, Thirumalabhagom PO.
3 Sandeep Krishna Bhat,
S/o Dileepkumar,
-do-
4 Jaideep Krishna Bhat(Minor)
S/o Dileep Kumar
Rept.by his mother 2nd OP
(By Adv. G.Sunilkumar)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a depositor with the first opposite party firm. The deceased Dileepkumar was the Managing Partner of the firm. The Managing Partner deceased Dileepkumar approached the complainant and requested to deposit amount with them and he offered attractive rate of interest to the complainant and thereby induced the complainant to deposit Rs.2 lakhs on 20.6.2013 for a period of 12 months to be expired on 20.6.2014, Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.10.2013 for 12 months expired on 17.10.2014, both repayable at the rate of 15% interest per annum and Rs.40,000/- on 20.9.2013 for a month of period expired on 20.10.2013 repayable together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with the firm. An amount of Rs.2500/- against Receipt No .2490, Rs.6000/- against Receipt No. 2433 and Rs.1875/- against Receipt No. 2632 and thus an aggregate of Rs.10,375/- per month was paid by said Dileepkumar to the complainant towards the interest of deposits made till January 2014. The deposit against Receipt No.2433 was made only for one month period. On the repeated demand of the complainant, said Dileepkumar agreed to return the same by January, 2014. Said Dileepkumar was died on 30.01.2014. Thereafter the complainant had on several occasions approached the opposite parties to return the amount covered under aforesaid fixed receipts together with agreed rate of interest, however they denied the assured service to the complainant by stating one reason or the other. There is dereliction of service on the part of the opposite parties, and they are liable to compensate the same also. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint is filed for the following reliefs:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.8,64,125/- together with 12% interest thereon from the date of complaint till realization of the same from the opposite parties and their assets by creating charge upon the property scheduled hereunder.
- To award the cost of the proceedings.
- Making provisions for such other and further reliefs deemed fit.
- The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The allegations that the deceased Dileepkumar approached the complainant etc. are put to strict proof. The complaint is unsustainable as per the provisions of law. There is no consumers and service vendor ship party relationship between the parties.
3. The main contention raised by the opposite parties 2 to 4 is the maintainability of the complaint. After hearing both parties, this Forum passed an order on 7th September, 2015 finding that the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is maintainable. Against the order the 2nd opposite party filed appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission also affirmed the order of this Forum. Against that the opposite parties 2 to 4 filed writ petition No.6105/201 before the Hon’ble High Court. After hearing the matter, Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition finding that, “Petitioners have not made out any case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality, arbitrariness or unfairness in the subject complaint pending before the Forum. The jurisdictional aspects are all to be decided by the Forum, taking note of the rival contentions and submissions made by the parties. Therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.” Thereafter the case posted for evidence.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. The documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the part of the opposite parties.
5. The points for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. According to the complainant, he deposited with the firm an amount of Rs.2 lakhs on 20.6.2013 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.10.2013 and Rs.4 lakhs on 20.9.2013. In order to prove that he has produced fixed deposit receipts bearing No.2433 dated 20.9.2013, No.2490 dated 20.6.2013 and No.2632 dated 17.10.2012 which marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The further allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to return the said amounts to the complainant after the maturity date. According to the complainant, he has received interest till January, 2014 for the amount deposited. It has not been denied by the opposite parties that the amounts in question were not deposited by the complainant with the firm of which the first opposite party and the deceased Dileepkumar were the partners. The contention taken by the opposite parties 2 to 4 is that they are the legal heirs of deceased Dileepkumar and they never be held to be liable for deficiency of service, since there is no consumer/vendor relationship with the legal heirs of the deceased partner. In this case complainant has made deposit with a firm expecting financial returns on the same and hence he is entitled to get the amount from the opposite parties. As we have already stated in the order dated 7.9.2015, the asset of deceased partner is liable for any act of the firm done before his death. Hence opposite parties are directed to return the deposited amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with 9% interest from February 2014 till realization. We further clarify that the liability of the opposite parties 2 to 4 are limited only to the extent of value of the properties inherited by them from deceased partner named Dileepkumar. The complainant is at liberty to proceed against such properties of the opposite parties for realization of the amount subject to the above limitation.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to return the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand only) with 9% interest from February, 2014 till realization. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest as charge over the properties of the opposite parties including the properties attached in this case. Since the primary relief is allowed no order as to cost or compensation.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistance transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Fixed deposit receipt bearing No.2632 dated 17.10.2013 for
Rs.1,50,000/-
Ext.A2 - Fixed deposit receipt bearing No.2490 dated 20.6.2013 for
Rs.2 lakhs
Ext.A3 - Fixed deposit receipt bearing No.2433 dated 20.9.2013 for
Rs.4 lakhs
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/opposite party.S.F
