Complaint No.1053-2010
Date of filing: 14/12/2010
Date of disposal: 31/03/2011
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.
Dated this 31st March 2011
Complaint No. 1053-2011
Present
:
1) Sri. T.H. Narayanagowda, President.
2) Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi, Member.
2) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member.
Complainant
:
D.Divakar Nair, R/at 2552, 3rd Cross, 4th Main, Kalidasa Road, Vontikoppal, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore-570002.
(By Sri S.C., Advocate)
V/S
Opponents
:
1. M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation (regd.), No.381, 2nd Cross, Benki Nawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore-570001. Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri A.L.Nanjundaraje Urs,
2.
Sri. A.L. Nanjundaraje Urs S/o late Lingaraje Urs, R/at No.725/O, 2nd Cross, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-23.
2.
Sri. Rajeevalochana, No.381, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.
2.
Sri. M.K. Biddappa, S/o H.S. Kariyappa, R/at No.20, K. Badagu Village, F.N.C. College post, Madakeri-571201.
2.
Smt. Leelavathi W/o M. Shivanna, R/at No.453, 1st Cross, 1st stage, Gayathripuram, Mysore.
2.
Smt. S. Nagarathna W/o R. Srinivas, R/at No.834, 1st cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.
2.
Smt. H.N. Dakshayani W/o R. Ramesh, R/at No.834, 1st cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.
2.
Sri. Jayaprakash S/o late Apparoo Pillai, R/at No.3047, 1st cross, 1st stage, Gokulam, Mysore.
2.
Smt. Lalitha W/o Sri. T.V. Venkataramu, R/at # No.3, Gokulam, 4th stage, Manjunathapura, Mysore.
10. Sri. A.M. Monnappa, S/o A.P. Mandappa, #No.20/41, Near Health office, Madakeri-571201. (partners)
(O.P.1 & 2 by Sri J.P. Adv.,
O.P.4, 6 to 10 by Sri B.V.R., Adv., and
O.P. 3 and 5 – Exparte)
(Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)
ORDER
1) This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponents for directing them to pay the F.D. amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- in all along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the dates of deposit till the date of payment, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/- etc.,
2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-
That the opponent No.1 is a Partnership Firm and the opponent Nos.2 to 10 are its partners and they are running the Finance Corporation in the name of Chanakya Finance Corporation Ltd., Mysore. The opponent Nos.2 and 3 are the Managing partners of the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation Ltd. On the pursuation of the opponents, the complainant has deposited the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation as 3 F.Ds on different dates for a period of one year. The opponents have agreed to repay the said amounts along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after the dates of maturity. Accordingly, the opponent No.2 as a Managing Partner has issued the F.D. receipts bearing Nos.461, 720 and 785 dated 09.11.2006, 02.06.2007 and 12.12.2008 respectively. Subsequently, the opponents have neither paid any amount towards interest nor paid the principal amounts in spite of repeated demands. However, the opponents have renewed two F.Ds dated 09.11.2006 and 02.06.2007 but failed to pay the amount as agreed by them. Hence, ultimately the complainant has got issued the legal notice dated 11.10.2010 to the opponent Finance corporation by RPAD demanding the payment of the said amounts along with interest. In spite of the same, the opponents have failed to pay the said amounts though they are under obligation to repay the said amounts along with interest whenever demanded by the complainant. Thus, the opponents have failed to render proper service to the customers as agreed by them and the same amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. Therefore, the opponents are liable to pay the compensation for the mental agony apart from paying the F.D. amounts along with interest. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponents.
3) In pursuance of the notice, the opponent Nos.1, 2, 4, and 6 to 10 appeared before this Forum through their advocates and resisted the complaint by filing the versions. But, the opponent Nos. 3 and 5 remained absent in spite of service of notice. Hence, they have been placed exparte. In the version, the opponent No. 2 who is the Managing Partner of the opponent No.1 finance corporation has denied the case of the complainant and further contended that all the documents of the finance are seized by the police and therefore he is not in a position to verify the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. He has also further contended that the opponent’s finance corporation has been regularly paying the interest to all the depositors. The opponent No.2 has contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the C.P.Act 1986 and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Thus, the opponent No. 2 has urged for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) In their version, the opponent Nos.4, and 6 to 10 have denied the case of the complainant and further contended that the opponent Nos.2 and 3 were alone managing the affairs of the Finance Corporation as Managing partners and they have exceeded their limits as partners and therefore, they are alone liable to pay the amounts claimed in the complaint and not the opponent Nos. 4 and 6 to 10. Thus, the other contesting opponents have urged for the dismissal of the complaint against them with costs.
5) After the filing of the versions of the contesting opponents, the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon, the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his case and closed his evidence. Thereafter, the opponent No. 2 has filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence and closed his evidence. The opponent Nos.4 and 6 to 10 have not filed their affidavits in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, ultimately, heard the arguments of both sides and then posted the case for orders.
6) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-
1.
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
2.
What Order?
7) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.2:- As per final order for the following,
REASONS
Point No.1:- As already stated above, in order to establish his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his case. In the affidavit, the complainant has duly sworn on oath in respect of all the averments of his case made out in the complaint. Thus the oral evidence of the complainant fully support his case made out in the complaint including the demands made by him for the payment of the F.D. amounts along with further interest. Apart from the said oral evidence, the complainant has also relied upon the original F.D.Rs. bearing Nos.461, 720 and 785 dated 09.11.2006, 02.06.2007 and 12.12.2008 respectively letter dated office copy of legal notice 11.10.2010, postal acknowledgement and postal envelop in support of his case. The contents of the said documents also support the oral evidence of the complainant and his case made out in the complaint. Thus, the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant fully support his case made out in the complaint including the demands made by him for the payment of the said amounts. The said evidence of the complainant is not seriously challenged by the contesting opponents. On the other hand, the contesting opponent No. 2 has indirectly admitted the said case of the complainant by saying that he is going to settle the amounts after the receipt of the said documents form the police. The other main opponent No.3 has neither challenged nor rebutted the said evidence of the complainant as he remained absent in spite of service of notice. Though the other contesting opponents have denied the case of the complainant in a formal way, they have not placed any documentary evidence on record in support of their defence except their self serving oral evidence. On the other hand, as already stated above, the case of the complainant is fully supported by oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. Hence, under these circumstances, we have no other alternative except to believe the said evidence of the complainant and his case made out in the complaint.
9) In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant has established his case by placing sufficient material on record and therefore, the complainant is entitled for the recovery of the F.D. amounts along with interest from the dates of deposits till the date of payment. From the facts and circumstances of the case including the material discussed above, clearly indicate that the opponents have failed to pay the matured F.D. amounts as agreed by them in spite of repeated demands and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. Therefore, they are liable to pay the reasonable compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- apart from refund of the F.D. amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- along with further interest. As per the complainant, the opponents have not paid any interest on the F.Ds from the dates of deposit and the said fact is not specifically denied by the opponents. Therefore, we have no other alternative except to award the interest on the said F.Ds at the agreed rate from the dates of deposits till the dates of maturity and further interest at the reasonable rate from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the present banking rate of interest, we feel it just and reasonable to award the further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the dates of maturity till the date of realization. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
10) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the recovery of the F.D. amounts along with interest, compensation and costs as stated above. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be allowed in part in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,
:: O R D E R ::
The complaint is allowed in part and the opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay the F.D. amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the agreed rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. from 09.11.2006 till the date of maturity and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. from 09.11.2010 till the date of realization.
The opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay the other F.D. amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the agreed rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. from 02.06.2007 till the date of maturity and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. from 02.06.2010 till the date of realization.
The opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay the other F.D. amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the agreed rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. from 12.12.2008 till the date of maturity and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. from 12.12.2009 till the date of realization.
The opponents are also jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
All the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of March 2011)
Member. Member President.
S.R.L.