District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II
8 B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 7th floor, Kolkata – 700 087.
Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No. : 1192 / 2008
Date of Filing : 23-12-2008
Date of Order : 30-12-2009
Complainant /Complainants
– Vs –
O.P. / O.P.s
1) Smt. Runu Das
2) Smt. Supriya Ghosh
74/1A, Durga Charan Mitra Street,
Kolkata – 700 006.
– Vs –
The Director
Duncan Industries Ltd.
31, Netaji Subhas Road,
Kolkata – 700 001,
P.S.- Hare Street
Before : Hon’ble President
Before : Hon’ble Member
:
:
Shri S. Bhattacharyya
Shri S.K. Deb
O R D E R
This is a case u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) alleging deficiency of service against the OP. The case of the complainant is that they has invested Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand only) in 2 (two) fixed deposits on non-cumulative basis in their names of the OP Company. The details of the fixed deposits are given below :
Sl No
FD No
Principal Amount
(Rs/-)
Term
Date of Maturity
Rate of interest
Interest Scheme
1)
124866
12,000
3 years
20-12-2002
@ 14.5%
NC MNT
2)
204012
12,000
1 years
05-12-2002
@ 12%
NC MNT
Total Principal Amount:
24,000
The original FDRs were deposited to the OP/Company for re-payment of the amount of the fixed deposit 28-11-2002. The complainants received only contractual interest in the meantime. As the OP Company defaulted to make payment of the principal amount alongwith post maturity interest of the fixed deposits, the complainants approached the respondent company for payment to the OP Company, but to no effect. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged in this Forum against the OP on 23-12-2008. Prayer has been made for giving direction on the OP Company for making payment of the due principal amount of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand only) alongwith post maturity interest till recovered, cost and any other order as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
OP contested the case by submitting written statement denying deficiency of service. According to it, the complaint is time barred and there has been misjoinder of parties and cause of actions, violation of Sub Section 2 of Section 12 of the C.P.Act., 1986 and the matter is subjudice in the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta vide C.P.Case No. 472 of 2003 and that it is a sick industrial company within the meaning of Clause (0), Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (SICA) and a reference has been made to BIFR in terms of provision of Section 15 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (SICA), which was duly registered as Case No. 70/2006. It has been mentioned that the company was declared sick by BIFR on 21-02-2007 and the State Bank of India has been appointed as Operating Agency under SICA and directed to formulate a draft rehabilitation scheme. It has been submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP as re-payment of the deposit to holder is under judicial process by BIFR. The matter was heard on 02-12-2009 in presence of both the parties. The documents as produced were perused and considered alongwith the respective submissions. Affidavit has been filed by the complainants. The complainants did not lodge any complaint in any other Court.
Decision
The complainants invested Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand only) in fixed deposit in their names under non-cumulative monthly interest payment scheme. The complainants received only contractual interest in the meantime. But the OP Company did not pay the due principal amount Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand only) of the fixed deposits alongwith post maturity interest to the complainants though fixed deposits matured is in the year 2002. The OP Company issued a letter dated 15-07-2002 in favour of the complainants. The complainants were informed that the due amount of the fixed deposit will be re-paid in 4 (four) instalments from 2004 / 05 to 2007 / 08 and that interest upto March. 2004 will be paid at the reduced rate as applicable to the Banks/Financial Institutions to be determined by them will be paid in instalments after the re-payment of the principal and that interest will be paid from 2004 / 05 onwards at the reduced rate as applicable to the Banks/Financial Institution to be determined by them. But re-payment of the fixed deposit was not made in pursuance of this letter. The OP was a reputed company previously and so it is expected that the complainants will wait to see as to how the re-payment of the fixed deposit is made, because no one wants to be involved in a litigation. Moreover, the fixed deposit was lying with the OP. The Hon’ble West Bengal State Commission has held in the case of Narayan Kr. Khaitan –Vs- Duncan Industries Ltd. that there will be continuous cause of action as long as the fixed deposit is not repaid in full alongwith interest to the depositor. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was continuous cause of action. The complaint was lodged on 23-12-2008 and it is not time barred.
The fixed deposit holders are in urgent need of money and they have invested their life’s savings in fixed deposits of the OP Company with the hope that the maturity amount will be helpful to support her at the time of her need. But their hope was shattered. OP failed to produce any order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta staying the proceeding of this Forum. The Hon;ble National Commission has laid down in a ruling reported in 2006-CTJ-1008 that the complaint before a District Forum is maintainable in spite of the fact that a reference has been made to the BIFR under provision of SICA, 1985. Hence, the present complaint is maintainable in the eye of law. We do not think that plea of limitation has any role to play in this case. The fixed deposit is held in the names of Smt. Runu Das and Supriya Ghosh. According to us there is no misjoinder of cause of actions or parties.
Considering the documents and submission of respective parties, we are of the opinion that the OP is liable in deficiency in service in not re-paying the due principal amount as per the scheme and due post maturity interest at contractual rate. Considered the decision reported in “ I (2004), WBLR – (CPNC) – 997 ”.
Hence,
Ordered
1) The complaint is allowed against the OP on contest.
2) The OP shall pay a sum of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand only) being the principal sum to the complainants against the FDRs in question. The OP is further directed to pay post maturity interest @ 8% p.a. (at the rate of Eight percent per annum) from the date of maturity till realisation.
3) The complainants are in urgent need of money. In consideration of the above, the OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainants for causing harassment, mental agony and dragging her to this Forum.
This order, aforesaid is directed to be complied with by the OP within 30 (Thirty) days on and from the date of communication.
The complainants are directed to serve a copy of this order upon the OP for compliance.
The CDF-II/CC bearing no. 1189 / 08 is disposed on contest, but in the circumstances, without any cost.
Supply copies to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member (M) President