Mr.Walter Lobo,
S/o. Paul Lobo,
Christian, aged 54 years,
R/A. Viwa Dale,
Kembar, Padil Post,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri.D.A.L. Andrade).

VERSUS

1. The Managing Director,
G.M.Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,
‘MANASA’ Pilikula Nisarga Dhama,
Mudushedde, Vamanjoor,
Mangalore-575 028.

2. M/s. G.M.Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,
‘MANASA’ Pilikula Nisarga Dhama,
Mudushedde, Vamanjoor,
Mangalore-575 028,
Rep. by Managing Director. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate: Sri. U.P.Muliya).


***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT:

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant claims to have deposited Rs.2,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposits with the Opposite Party i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- each. It is submitted that, on the due dates the Opposite Party requested the Complainant to renew the same, thereby two fixed deposits were renewed on 31.1.2007 and 18.6.2007 and fixed deposit receipt No.129 and 130 were issued by the Opposite Party for a period of one year. The principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each with interest were due on 31.1.2008 and 18.6.2008. On maturity neither the principal nor the interest has been paid. Inspite of correspondence the Opposite Party has failed to pay the principal amount and interest on the Fixed Deposits. The registered lawyer’s notice dated 26.9.2008 was issued and called upon the Opposite Party to pay the amount but the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount and hence it is contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency and hence the above complaint is filed before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay the Fixed Deposit amount along with interest at 8.5% on fixed deposit No.130 and 9% interest on Fixed Deposit No.129 and also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.750/- as cost of the lawyer’s notice.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version submitted that Complainant being a share holder showed interest to invest in the Fixed Deposit and invested the amount under fixed deposit amount. Complainant failed to surrender security cheques given along with the Fixed Deposit receipt to the Company in order to register his refund claim and hence the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount. It is submitted that upto 31.3.2008 the Opposite Party has paid the interest. The principal cannot be paid as on date as the Company has got notice under Securitization Act from HUDCO. And it is submitted that, the amount will be settled on seniority basis, once HUDCO loan settled and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
(ii)If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?






(iii)What order?


4. In support of the complaint – Mrs. Violet Lobo(CW1) – wife and GPA holder of the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex.C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Thomas Oswald Pinto (RW1) - Managing Director of Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties have produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes and oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. POINT NO. (i) to (iii):

It is undisputed fact that, the Complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- each under the Fixed Deposit bearing receipt No.129 and 130 with the Opposite Party. It is also undisputed that, on the due dates the above Fixed Deposits were renewed on 31.1.2007 and 18.6.2007 respectively.
Now the point in dispute is that, the Opposite Party has failed to pay the fixed deposit amount to the Complainant inspite of writing several letters.
In the present case, the Ex C2 and C3 are the fixed deposit receipts issued by the Opposite Party reveals that Rs.1,00,000/- was accepted on 31.1.2007 for a period of one year under the receipt No.129 from the Complainant, the Opposite Party agreed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and the date of maturity shown as 31.1.2008. And another receipt No.130 reveals that Rs.1,00,000/- accepted from the Complainant on 18.6.2007 for the period of one year, the Opposite Party agreed to pay interest at 8.5% p.a. and the date of maturity shown as 18.6.2008. Both the Fixed Deposit receipts were issued by the Opposite Party and signed by the authorized signatory for the Opposite Party. The Ex C4 is the registered letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party to call upon the above said deposits proves that the Opposite Party is failed to pay the above said amount.
In the instant case, the Opposite Parties taken a contention that though they have admitted the Fixed Deposit amount but contended that the Complainant failed to surrender the security cheques to the Company and also contended that the Company has got notice under Securitization Act from HUDCO hence they cannot settle the amount. The contention taken by the Opposite Party appears to be very strange just because the Opposite Party received the notice from the Securitization Act from HUDCO they cannot withheld the fixed deposit amount of the depositor herein the Complainant. And the another contention taken by the Opposite Party is that, the Complainant has failed to surrender the security cheques to the Company. When the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount the question of surrendering the cheques in advance does not arise.
From the evidence as well as the documents produced by the Complainant i.e., Ex C1 to C7 it is proved beyond doubt that the Opposite Party accepted the amount reflected in the Fixed Deposit receipt No.129 and 130 and it is admitted by the Complainant that the interest is paid upto 31.1.2008 under Fixed Deposit No.129 and upto 1.2.2008 under Fixed Deposit No.130, thereafter the Opposite Party has not paid the interest as agreed by them under the Fixed Deposits and also failed to pay the principal amount till this date amounts to deficiency.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties without paying the principal amount along with agreed interest from the respective date stated supra till this date shows their gross negligence towards the customer herein the Complainant. Hence we direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit No.129 along with interest at 9% p.a. from 31.1.2008 till the date of payment and further Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit No.130 along with interest at 8.5% p.a. from 1.2.2008 till the date of payment. However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed. Interest is always inclusive of compensation. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit No.129 along with interest at 9% p.a. from 31.1.2008 till the date of payment and further Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit No.130 along with interest at 8.5% p.a. from 1.2.2008 till the date of payment. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

1. Margaret Pinto,

Aged about 52 years,

W/o. Mr.Jerald Pinto,

Guthige House, Bondel Post,

Mangalore.



2. Mr.Jerald Pinto,

Sylvester Pinto,

Aged about 56 years,

Guthige House, Bondel Post,

Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANTS



(Complainant No.2 represented by G.P.A.

Holder Complainant No.1)



(Advocate: Sri.P.P. Hegde).



VERSUS



1. G.M. Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,

Pilikula Nisarga Dhama,

Mudu Shedde, Vamanjoor,

Mangalore.

(Represented by its Managing

Director Mr.Oswald Pinto)



2. Mr.Oswald Pinto,

The Managing Director,

G.M. Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,

Pilikula Nisarga Dhama,

Mudu Shedde, Vamanjoor,

Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES


The Complainant No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and it is submitted that the Complainant No.2 is employed in abroad visits once in a year and hence the above complaint is filed under power of attorney. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is a Registered Company Limited under the Companies Act 1956 received fixed deposits from the general public promising to repay the same with interest believing the same as true the Complainants have made deposits with the Opposite Party.


After the maturity, the Complainants demanded to repay the matured deposits but inspite of the repeated demand the Opposite Party is failed to repay the said amount which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the Complainants filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with accrued interest from the date of deposit till the date of repayment and further claimed compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel but not filed version inspite of taking sufficient time and hence the evidence of the Opposite Parties treated as nil. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 and 2.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?


(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Mrs.Margaret Pinto (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced copy of the fixed deposit receipts and notarized copy of the General Power of Attorney. Opposite Parties not filed counter affidavit and the evidence of the Opposite Parties treated as nil.

We have heard and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the Complainants and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons

5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the present case, the fixed deposit receipts produced by the Complainant issued by the Opposite Party reveals that on 5.7.2005 the Complainant No.1 was deposited Rs.2.00 lakhs with the Opposite Party i.e., G.M. Amusement and Leisure Park Limited and the Opposite Parties agreed to pay interest at 11% p.a. and the date of maturity was 3 years i.e., 5.7.2008 and the said fixed deposit receipt signed by authorized signatory of the Opposite Party. And another fixed deposit receipt issued by the Opposite Party reveals that the Complainant No.2 had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on 4.08.2005 and the Opposite Parties agreed to pay interest at 10.5% p.a. for the period of 3 years i.e., 4.8.2008.

The above fixed deposit receipts made us very clear that the Opposite Parties inspite of taking amount under fixed deposit inspite of the maturity date they have failed to pay the amount till this date amounts to deficiency in service. At the same time, we find that the version notice issued by this Hon'ble Forum has been served to the Opposite Parties despite of that they have not appeared before the FORA nor contradicted the evidence placed by the Complainant. The entire evidence of the Complainant is not rebutted by the Opposite Party which requires no further proof. In view of the above, we hereby direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant No.1 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-being the deposited amount under the fixed deposit receipt No.166 along with interest at 11% p.a. (contractual rate) from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e., 05.07.2008 and thereafter liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment.

And further the Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-being the deposited amount under the fixed deposit receipt No.036 along with interest at 10.5% p.a. (contractual rate) from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e., 04.08.2008 and thereafter liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment. However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed. Interest is always inclusive of compensation. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.



6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant No.1 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-being the deposited amount under the fixed deposit receipt No.166 along with interest at 11% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e., 05.07.2008 and thereafter liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment. And further the Opposite Parties are directed to pay to the Complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-being the deposited amount under the fixed deposit receipt No.036 along with interest at 10.5% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of maturity i.e., 04.08.2008 and thereafter liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

COMPLAINT NO.138/2009

(Admitted on 25.6.2009)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President

2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

BETWEEN:

Sandra D’Souza,

Wife of Mr.Rudolf G. Fernandes,

Christian, aged 36 years,

Residing at Magdalane Cottage,

Main Road, Talipady Village,

Kinnigoli-574 150. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Daryl A.L.Andrade)

VERSUS

1.M/s G.M.Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,.

MANASA, Pilikula Nisargadhama,

Moodushedde, Vamanjoor,

Mangalore-575 028.

Represented by Managing Director.

2. The Managing Director,

M/s G.M.Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,.

MANASA, Pilikula Nisargadhama,

Moodushedde, Vamanjoor,

Mangalore-575 028. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 & 2: Sri.Uday Prakash Muliya.)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain relief’s.

The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act invited deposits from the public to invest with them. The Complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- under Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.117/L.F.No.290 with the Opposite Party. The principal amount and the interest was due on 17.4.2009. It is submitted that on maturity neither the principal nor the interest has been paid. Inspite of correspondence Opposite Party has failed to pay the principal amount along with interest till this date. The Complainant issued a lawyers notice dated.30.5.2009 surrendered the original Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 17.4.2009 and also called upon to pay the amount under the F.D. Receipt. The Opposite Party failed to pay the amount till this date hence it is contended service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 8.5.% quarterly on F.D.No.117 from 1.4.2008 upto the date of this Complaint and also pay future interest and Rs.1,00,000/- claimed as compensation and costs of the proceedings.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed common version. It is submitted that Opposite Party is the company represented by its Managing Director. The Complainant being a share holder showed interest to invest in the Fixed Deposit Receipt to the company. It is stated that the Opposite Party has paid interest upto 1.4.2008 on the deposit and submitted that principal cannot be paid as on date as the company has got notice under Securitization Act from HUDCO and all transaction thereafter are barred under the said Act under Section 13. It is submitted that one the HUDCO loan is settled, the principal amount will be paid on seniority basis and it is contended that the Complainant failed to surrender the security cheques to the company. It is stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.


3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
(i) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
(ii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant– Smt.Sandra D’Souza (CW1), filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C3 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Thomas Oswald Pinto (RW1), Managing Director of Opposite Parties Company and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties have produced notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon’ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS

5. POINT NO. (i) to (iii):



In the present case, the facts which are not in dispute is that the Complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.117/L.F.No.290 issued by the Opposite Parties. The above principal amount and interest under the above receipt was due on 17.4.2009 as per Ex.C3.

Now the point in dispute is that, the Opposite Party has failed to pay the fixed deposit amount to the Complainant inspite of approaching personally and also issuing legal notice dated 30.5.2009 (i.e. Ex C1).

The Ex.C3 is a Fixed Deposit Receipt issued by the Opposite Parties reveals that the Complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- and the date of maturity shown as 17.4.2009 and the rate of interest agreed by the Opposite Parties at 8.5%. The above said Fixed Deposit Receipt admitted by the Opposite Parties. The only contention taken by the Opposite Parties are that the principal amount cannot be paid as on date and the Company has got notice under Securitization Act from HUDCO and all transaction thereafter are barred under the said Act. And further contended that on receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Party Company informed the Complainant to surrender the security cheques issued to him to the registered office to register her claim and the principal amount will be settled on seniority basis, once HUDCO loan is settled. From the evidence as well as the documents produced by the parties made us clear that, the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount by raising a contention that the company has HUDCO loan and the amount will be settled on seniority basis, the above said contention has no basis just because the Opposite Party Company has HUDCO loan they cannot withheld the Fixed Deposit amount of the depositors herein the Complainant. Another contention taken by the Opposite Party is that, the Complainant has failed to surrender the security cheques to the company. When the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount the question of surrendering the cheques in advance does not arise.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Fixed Deposit Amount deposited by the Complainant under the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.117/L.F. No.290 for Rs.1,00,000/- has been matured on 17.4.2009. The maturity date has been already expired, on failure to pay the above amount on the maturity date and thereafter till this date amounts to deficiency in service. Since the Complainant admitted that he has received the interest up to 1.4.2008 the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay the same. In view of the aforesaid reasons we direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.117/L.F.No.290 shall be paid to the Complainant along with the interest at 8.5% per annum from 1.4.2008 till the date of maturity and thereafter the Opposite Party company shall pay @ 10% per annum on the above said matured amount till the date of payment And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.


6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties represented by its Managing Director is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.117/L.F.No.290 along with the interest at 8.5% per annum from 1.4.2008 till the date of maturity and thereafter the Opposite Parties are pay @ 10% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment And Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The F.D.R., if any, deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

COMPLAINT NO.139/2009

(Admitted on 25.6.2009)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President

2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

BETWEEN:

Mr.Rudolf G. Fernandes,

Son of Sebastian Fernandes,

Christian, aged 46 years,

Residing at Magdalane Cottage,

Main Road, Talipady Village,

Kinnigoli-574 150. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Daryl A.L.Andrade)

VERSUS

1.M/s G.M.Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,.

MANASA, Pilikula Nisargadhama,

Moodushedde, Vamanjoor,

Mangalore-575 028.

Represented by Managing Director.

2. The Managing Director,

M/s G.M.Amusement & Leisure Park Ltd.,.

MANASA, Pilikula Nisargadhama,

Moodushedde, Vamanjoor,

Mangalore-575 028. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1& 2:Sri.Uday Prakash Muliya.)

* * * *

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain relief’s.

The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act invited deposits from the public to invest with them. The Complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- under Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing No.118/L.F.No.291 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.119/L.F.No.292 for Rs.2,00,000/- with the Opposite Party. The principal amount and the interest under F.D. Receipt No.118 for Rs.1,00,000/- was due on 17.4.2009 and F.D. Receipt No.119 for Rs.2,00,000/- was due on 12.5.2009. It is submitted that on maturity neither the principal nor the interest has been paid. Inspite of correspondence Opposite Party has failed to pay the principal amount along with interest till this date. The Complainant issued a lawyers notice dated.30.5.2009 surrendered the two original Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing No.’s 118 for Rs.1,00,000/- and 119 for Rs.2,00,000/- that matured on 17.4.2009 and 12.5.2009 duly discharged and also called upon to pay the amount under the F.D. Receipts. The Opposite Party failed to pay the amount till this date hence it is contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 8.5.% quarterly on F.D.No.118 from 1.4.2008 upto the date of this Complaint and Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 8.5.% quarterly on F.D.No.119 from 1.4.2008 upto the date of this Complaint and also pay future interest and Rs.1,00,000/- claimed as compensation and costs of the proceedings.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed common version. It is submitted that Opposite Party is the company represented by its Managing Director. The Complainant being a share holder showed interest to invest in the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the company. It is stated that the Opposite Party has paid interest upto 1.4.2008 on both the deposits and submitted that principal cannot be paid as on date as the company has got notice under Securitization Act from HUDCO and all transaction thereafter are barred under the said Act under Section 13. It is submitted that once the HUDCO loan is settled, the principal amount will be paid on seniority basis and it is contended the Complainant failed to surrender the security cheques to the company. It is stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.


3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(i) What order?

4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant– Sri Rudolf G Fernandes (CW1), filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C3 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Thomas Oswald Pinto (RW1), Managing Director of Opposite Parties Company and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties have produced notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon’ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.


REASONS

5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):



In the present case, the facts which are not in dispute is that the Complainant invested Rs.3,00,000/- under two Fixed Deposits, Rs.1,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.118/L.F.No.291 and for Rs.2,00,000/- under the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.119/L.F.No.292 issued by the Opposite Parties. The above principal amount and interest under the above receipts was due on 17.4.2009 and 12.5.2009 respectively as per Ex.C3.

Now the point in dispute is that, the Opposite Parties have failed to pay the fixed deposit amounts to the Complainant inspite of approaching personally and also issuing legal notice dated 30.5.2009 (i.e. Ex C1).

The Ex.C3 contains two Fixed Deposit Receipts issued by the Opposite Parties reveal that the Complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, the date of maturity shown as 17.4.2009 and 12.5.2009 and the rate of interest agreed by the Opposite Parties at 8.5% respectively. The above said Fixed Deposit Receipts admitted by the Opposite Parties. The only contention taken by the Opposite Parties are that the principal amount cannot be paid as on date and the Company has got notice under Securitization Act from HUDCO and all transaction thereafter are barred under the said Act. And further contended that on receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Party Company informed the Complainant to surrender the security cheques issued to him to the registered office to register his claim and the principal amount will be settled on seniority basis, once HUDCO loan is settled. From the evidence as well as the documents produced by the parties made us clear that, the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount by raising a contention that the company has HUDCO loan and the amount will be settled on seniority basis, the above said contention has no basis just because the Opposite Party Company has HUDCO loan they cannot withheld the Fixed Deposit amount of the depositors herein the Complainant. Another contention taken by the Opposite Party is that, the Complainant has failed to surrender the security cheques to the company. When the Opposite Party failed to pay the amount the question of surrendering the cheques in advance does not arise.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Fixed Deposit Amounts deposited by the Complainant under the Fixed Deposit Receipts No.118/L.F.No.291 for Rs.1,00,000/- has been matured on 17.4.2009 and No.119/L.F.No.292 for Rs.2,00,000/- has been matured on 12.5.2009. The maturity date has been already expired, on failure to pay the above amount on the maturity date and thereafter till this date amounts to deficiency in service. Since the Complainant admitted that he has received the interest up to 1.4.2008 the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay the same. In view of the aforesaid reasons we direct the Opposite Parties to pay under Fixed Deposit Receipts No.118/L.F.No.291 for Rs.1,00,000/- and No.119/L.F.No.292 for Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant along with the interest at 8.5% per annum from 1.4.2008 till the date of maturity respectively and thereafter the Opposite Party Company shall pay @ 10% per annum on the above said matured amount till the date of payment And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.



6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties represented by its Managing Director is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing No.118/L.F.No.291 and No.119/L.F.No.292 along with the interest at 8.5% per annum from 1.4.2008 till the date of maturity respectively and thereafter the Opposite Party Company shall pay @ 10% per annum on the above said matured amount till the date of payment. Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

The F.D.R., if any, deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.