Complaint No.683 to 686-2010
Date of filing: 13/09/2010
Date of disposal: 28/03/2011
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.
Dated this 28th March 2011
Complaint No. 683 to 686-2011
Present
:
1) Sri. T.H. Narayanagowda, President.
2) Smt. Y.V.Uma Shenoi, Member.
3) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member.
Complainant
(Common in all the cases)
:
Smt.N.Veena, W/o Late N.D.Devaraje Urs, No.34, 4th Main Road, 9th Cross, C Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore.
(By Sri K.V.S, Advocate)
V/S
Opponents
(common in all the cases)
:
1) M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation (regd.), No.381, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Benki Nawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore. Rep. by its Managing Partners
A) Sri A.L.Nanjundaraje Urs and
2.
Sri Rajeevalochana,
2.
Sri. A.L. Nanjundaraje Urs S/o late Lingaraje Urs, R/at No.725/O, II cross, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.
2.
Sri. Rajeevalochana, S/o V.V.Venkateshaiah, No.265, 8th Cross, Gollarageri, Deewan’s Road, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore.
2.
Sri. M.K. Biddappa, S/o M.S. Kariyappa, R/at No.20, K. Badaga Village, F.N.C. College post, Madakeri-571201.
2.
Smt. Leelavathi W/o M. Shivanna, R/at No.453, I cross, I stage, Gayathripuram, Mysore.
2.
Smt. S. Nagarathna W/o R. Srinivas, R/at No.834, 1st cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.
3.
Smt. H.N. Dakshayani W/o R. Ramesh, R/at No.834, 1st cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore.
2.
Sri. Jayaprakash S/o late Appavoo 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.
(O.P.1(a) & 2 by Sri J.P. Adv.,
O.P.4, 6 to 10 by Sri B.V.R., Adv., and
O.P.1(b), 3 and 5 – Exparte)
(Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)
ORDER
COMMON ORDERS IN CC 683 TO 686-2010
In all the aforesaid cases, complainant and the opponents are common and therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the said cases are clubbed together and proceed to pass the common order.
2) These are the complaints filed by the common complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the common opponents for directing them to pay the F.D. amounts of Rs.11,00,000/- in all along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from April 2010 till the date of realization, compensation and costs etc.,
3) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaints 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 total sum of Rs.11,00,000/- in the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation as 4 F.Ds of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- 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.401, 307, 402 and 195 dated 08.06.09, 07.03.07, 08.06.09 and 30.01.07 respectively. Subsequently, the opponents have paid the interest at the agreed rate of 12% p.a. upto the month of March 2010. Thereafter, the opponents have neither paid any amount towards interest nor paid the principal amount in spite of repeated demands. Hence, ultimately the complainant has addressed the letters dated 18.06.2010 to the opponent Finance corporation through professional couriers 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 amounts 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.
4) In pursuance of the common notice, the opponent Nos.1, 2, 4, and 6 to 10 appeared before this Forum through their advocates and resisted the complaints 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 cases 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 complaints. He has also further contended that the opponent’s finance corporation has been paying the interest to all the depositors regularly including the complainant. In spite of the same, the complainant has not stated anything about the payment of interest and therefore, the complaints are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Thus, the opponent No. 2 has urged for the dismissal of the complaints with costs.
5) In their version, the opponent Nos.4, and 6 to 10 have denied the cases 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 complaints and not the opponent Nos. 4 and 6 to 10. Thus, the other contesting opponents have urged for the dismissal of the complaints against them with costs.
6) After the filing of the versions of the contesting opponents, the cases were posted for evidence. Thereupon, the complainant has filed her affidavits in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of her cases and closed her 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 filed the affidavits of the opponent No.10 along with memo adopting the same on behalf of the other opponent Nos.4, and 6 to 9 and closed their evidence. Hence, thereafter, heard the arguments of both sides and then posted the cases for orders.
7) 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 complaints?
2.
What Order?
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
9) Point No.1:- As already stated above, in order to establish her cases, the complainant has filed her affidavits in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of her cases. In the affidavits, the complainant has duly sworn on oath in respect of all the averments of her cases made out in the complaints. Thus the oral evidence of the complainant fully support her cases made out in the complaints including the demands made by her 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.401, 307, 402 and 195 dated 08.06.09, 07.03.07, 08.06.09 and 30.01.07 respectively and office copy of demand letters dated 18.06.2010 and courier receipts in support of her cases. The contents of the said documents also support the oral evidence of the complainant and her cases made out in the complaints. Thus, the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant fully support her cases made out in the complaints including the demands made by her 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 cases of the complainant by saying that their Finance Corporation has regularly paid the interest to all the depositors including the complainant. 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 cases 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 cases of the complainant are 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 her cases made out in the complaints.
10) In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant has established her cases by placing sufficient material on record and therefore, the complainant is entitled for the recovery of the F.D. amounts along with further interest. From the facts and circumstances of the case including the material discussed above, clearly indicate that the opponents have failed to pay the F.D. amounts 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.7,500/- apart from refund of the F.D. amounts of Rs.11,00,000/- along with further interest. Admittedly, the opponents have paid the interest upto March 2010. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the further interest only from April 2010 and onwards. Apart from the material placed on record, it is also very pertinent to note at this stage, the financial condition of the opponent No.1 finance corporation while awarding the further interest on the F.D.amounts. Admittedly, on the perusal of the statistics of filings of the complaints before this Forum clearly discloses that number of depositors are filing the complaints every month against the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation for the recovery of the F.D. amounts on the allegation that the opponents are not paying the F.D. amounts along with interest in spite of repeated demands. The said fact clearly indicates that the financial condition of the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation is not good and therefore, they are not repaying the amounts as agreed by them and as a result of which all the depositors are coming before this Forum one by one by filing the complaints and thus, we are receiving number of complaints every month. Hence, having regard to these facts and circumstances of the cases and the present banking rate of interest including the financial condition of the opponent No.1 Finance Corporation, we feel it just and reasonable to award the further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01.04.2010 till the date of realization. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
11) 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 complaints deserve to be allowed in part in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,
:: COMMON O R D E R ::
The complaints are allowed in part and the opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay the F.D. amounts of Rs.11,00,000/- in all to the complainant along with further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01.04.02010 till the date of realization.
The opponents are also jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation and cost of Rs.7,500/- 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.
Keep the original order in C.C.No.683/2010 and copies of the same in the other connected C.C. Nos.684 to 686/2010.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28th day of March 2011)
Member. Member President.
S.R.L.