BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.19/2009 Order dated this the 26th day of June 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Smt.Chikkathayamma W/o M.Puttaswamygowda, M.Koppalu, Yeliyur Post, Mandya. (By Sri.Chikkamari., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S Yeliyur Finance Corporation (R), Near Syndicate Bank, Yeliyur 571102. Rep. by its R.Kanthamani, Managing Partner, 3rd Cross, Subashnagar, Beside Lawyer Subbakrishna House, Mandya. (By Sri.K.M.Basavaraju., Advocate) Date of complaint 18.02.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 09.03.2009 Date of order 26.06.2009 Total Period 3 Months 17 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the Opposite party to pay the FD amount of Rs.16,000/- with interest of Rs.30,000/- and compensation of Rs.14,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited Rs.3,000/- on 14.07.1994 and Rs.5,000/- on 17.08.1996 with Opposite party Finance Corporation and has issued the FD receipts mentioning date of maturity and rate of interest and the matured amount. After expiry of the term, though the complainant was demanding to pay the matured amount, the Opposite party was dragging on giving one reason or other. Thereafter, the Office was closed and the complainant searched and traced address of the Opposite party and requested Opposite party, but was not useful. Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 06.01.2009 and it was not served. The complainant has sustained loss. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The complainant has filed an application under section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, to condone the delay. 4. Admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite party and the Opposite party has filed version. Admitting that the complainant has deposited Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- with Opposite party Finance Corporation. It is contended by the Opposite party that the complainant is not a Consumer and the complaint is barred by limitation. It is denied that after the maturity period, the complainant was demanding and the Opposite party was dodging giving reasons and then, the Opposite party closed the Office and the complainant tried to trace the address and then approached the Opposite party and then the complainant got issued a legal notice. It is further contended that M.Puttaswamygowda, the husband of the complainant has borrowed loan of Rs.10,000/- on 26.08.1995 agreeing to pay with interest at 21% under loan ledger No.475 and one M.J.Hanumanthaiah is the surety. In fact, the loan was advanced to the husband of the complainant since there was FD of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant with her husband and surety M.J.Hanumanthaiah gave a petition to adjust the FD amount towards the loan saying that the FD receipt is lost and signed on the counterfoil of the FD receipt and therefore, the FD amount with interest up to 12.12.1995 was calculated and FD amount of Rs.3,792/- was adjusted to the loan and the remaining amount of Rs.6,835/- was paid by her husband. Again, the husband of the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- on 17.08.1996 and paid only Rs.3,000/- on 02.11.1996 and then, the complainant along with her husband and surety gave a petition to adjust the FD amount to the loan and accordingly on 11.01.1997, the loan was calculated and FD amount with interest up to 11.01.1997 amounting to Rs.5,377/- was adjusted towards the loan and balance of Rs.12,492/- was paid by her husband and hence, account was closed. On account of proper payment of the loan by her husband, again loan was Rs.65,000/- was given to her husband on 17.09.1997. Since, the Opposite party was demanding the repayment of the said loan, the complainant got filed this false complaint and therefore, the Opposite party is liable not pay any FD amount to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed with costs. 5. During trial, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.4. The Opposite party Manager is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 to R.17. 6. We have heard the counsel for the Opposite party. Later, the complainant Advocate has filed written arguments. 7. We have perused the documents. 8. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer? 2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the Opposite party proves that the complainant consented for the adjustment of FD amount to the loss of her husband M.Puttaswamygowda? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the FD amount with interest clamed? 5. What order? 9. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 10. The undisputed facts are that the complainant has deposited Rs.3,000/- on 14.07.1994 for a period of 48 ½ months and the Opposite party has issued FD receipt as per Ex.C.1 and further, the complainant has deposited Rs.5,000/- on 17.08.1996 and the Opposite party has issued the FD receipt as per Ex.C.2. Admittedly, the Opposite party is a Finance Corporation (R), so it is dealing in money investment and also money lending business. So, once the complainant has deposited the amount and the Opposite party has issued FD receipt, automatically, the complainant will become a Consumer of the Opposite party and hence, we hold that the complainant is a Consumer. 11. The Opposite party has taken contention that the complaint is barred by limitation and hence, the complaint is to be dismissed. But, the complainant has filed an application under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, to condone the delay in filing the complaint. The Opposite party has not filed any objection to that application. The complainant has given the reason in the affidavit that at the time of maturity of the FD, the Opposite party has closed the business premises and did not conduct any transaction and she came to know the residence of the Opposite party Managing Director and the delay in filing the complaint is only due to non-availability of the Opposite party. Of course in the version, the Opposite party has disputed that the complainant was approaching the Opposite party after the maturity time and the Opposite party was dodging and thereafter was not opening the Corporation Office and later, the complainant traced. But, if we peruse the Ex.C.4 postal cover, under which the legal notice Ex.C.3 was sent, it was un-served and returned with a endorsement by the postal authority that the Opposite party Finance Corporation is not in the address given. There is no evidence by the Opposite party when actually the Finance Corporation Office was closed. Under these circumstances, we hold that the complainant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the complaint and therefore, we hold that the complaint is not barred by limitation. 12. The complainants grievance is that though the Opposite party has issued the FD receipt Ex.C.1 & C.2 with maturity amount of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, but the Opposite party has not paid the FD amount, but went on dodging giving one or other reason, but the contention of the Opposite party is that M.Puttaswamygowda, the husband of the complainant along with surety M.J.Hanumanthaiah borrowed loan of Rs.10,000/- and the complainant consented for the adjusted of FD amount and accordingly, the FD amount of Rs.3,000/- under Ex.C.1 with interest on 12.12.1995 was adjusted towards the loan and balance was paid by her husband and account was closed. Again, the husband of the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- on 17.10.1996 and he was balance of Rs.17,000/- as on 31.12.1996 and the complainant with her husband and surety gave consent letter to adjust the FD amount of Rs.5,000/- with accrued interest up to 11.01.1997 and accordingly, FD amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest of Rs.377/- was adjusted towards the loan and the balance was paid by her husband and account was closed. It is the further case of the Opposite party is that the husband of the complainant has also borrowed loan of Rs.65,000/- on 17.09.1997 and it is due and when the Opposite party was demanding, the present complaint is filed at the instigation of husband of the complainant. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 to R.6 to prove that M.Puttaswamygowda the husband of the complainant has borrowed loan of Rs.10,000/- on 26.08.1995 and one M.J.Hanumanthaiah was the surety and Ex.R.7 is produced and it is dated 12.12.1995 and according to the Opposite party, the complainant and her husband and surety Hanumanthaiah gave a consent letter to adjust the FD amount with interest to the loan and the FD Bond is lost. Though the complainant has denied the same, but the Opposite party has examined the witness M.K.Devegowda and he has deposed with regard to the contents of Ex.R.7 and he has not been cross-examined and hence, his evidence has remained unchallenged. Further, the Opposite party has produced counterfoil of the FD receipt as per Ex.R.8(a) and on the back of this counterfoil, the husband of the complainant has signed and LTM of complainant is obtained and the account was closed by adjusting the FD amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest of Rs.3,792/- as on 12.12.1995 and this entries are made in the loan ledger as per Ex.R.9(a). 13. Likewise, the Opposite party has produced Ex.R.10 to R.15 the documents to prove that the M.Puttaswamygowda husband of the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.20,000/- on 17.10.1996 and one M.J.Hanumanthaiah is the surety and Ex.R.16, the letter is produced by the Opposite party to prove that the complainant along with her husband has given consent letter on 11.01.1997 to adjust the FD amount in FD receipt No.84 and agreeing to pay the balance loan and on that basis, the FD amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest of Rs.377/- as on 11.01.1997 was adjusted to the loan account and the balance was paid and the account was closed and the complainant and her husband have put signature. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.17 the counterfoil of the FD receipt and the closing of the account is mentioned on the back of this Ex.R.17 and the account is closed in the loan ledger Ex.R.17(a). Except suggesting to the Manager of the Opposite party that the documents are created, but the Opposite party has examined the witness to prove that the complainant has given consent letter as per Ex.C.16 and he is a witness. He has not been cross-examined at all and the document has remained unchallenged. Further, it is relevant to note that summons was got issued by the Opposite party to the husband of the complainant to appear as a witness, but in spite of service of summons by RPAD, the husband of the complainant did not turn up. There is no explanation as to why the husband of the complainant did not turn up. If he had appeared before the Forum truth would have come out and if actually the documents are created as suggested by the complainant, the husband of the complainant should have appeared before this Forum and denied the documents produced by the Opposite party with regard to the availing loan and consent for adjustment of the FD amount to the loans. Further, it is material to note that though as per the complainant, Ex.C.1 FD receipt matured on 30.07.1998 and Ex.C.2 FD receipt matured on 02.09.2000, till 2009 she kept quiet. Even for the shake of the arguments, it is taken that the Opposite party has closed business centre and was not doing transaction, question arises why the complainant kept quiet for more than 9 years. If actually, the FD amounts were not adjusted towards the loan of her husband, the husband of the complainant would not kept quiet and would have got take action through his wife to get the FD amount from the Opposite party. Therefore, the Opposite party has produced sufficient documents and evidence and has proved that the FD amounts under Ex.C.1 & C.2 are adjusted towards the loan of her husband. 14. Since, the Opposite party has proved the adjustment of FD amounts to the loan of her husband by documentary evidence which have remained unchallenged, the Opposite party is not due and not at all liable to pay the FD amount claimed in this complaint. Obviously, the complainant is not entitled to the FD amount or interest or any compensation as claimed in the complaint. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of June 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
