M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd
Padmapriya investnebts Services
This complaint remanded by the State Commission vide order dated 27.03.2009 in Revision Petition No. 16/08 having been heard on 30.07.2009, the Forum on 17.08.2009 delivered the following:
This complaint remanded by the State Commission vide order dated 27.03.2009 in Revision Petition No. 16/08 with direction to dispose the case strictly in accordance with the directions of the National Commission.
The fact leading to the filing of the complaint is that complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- as fixed deposit for 18 months at the rate of 16% interest on 01.11.1998 with 1st opposite party M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. through additional 3rd opposite party, Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd,
Thiruvananthapuram. The said fixed deposit was matured on 01.05.2000 and the maturity value of Rs. 18740/- including interest of Rs. 3740/- was payable to complainants on that date. When the maturity value was claimed from the opposite parties complainants obtained an order of the Company Law Board, Western Region Branch, Mumbai rescheduling the repayment (vide Lloyds Finance Ltd., letter dated 15.06.1999). As per the said order the said fixed deposit is repayable at the rate of 30% each during the first and second year and 40% in the 3rd year with accrued interest upto the date of maturity
as contracted and @ 12.5% till the date of actual payment. During August 2001, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid to the complainants leaving a balance of Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest. During July 2002, the original F.D receipt was submitted to the company with a request to pay the second instalment. Since then, the company was reminded on 20.08.2002, 19.12.2002, 19.02.2003, 04.07.2003 and 17.09.2003. There was no response from the opposite parties. The delay in payment of the sum due to the complainants is causing undue avoidable hardship to the complainants who are senior citizens who live on the pension due to them with no other income. Hence this complaint claiming payment dues without further delay.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 did not file version denying the complainants’ transaction, but sent an order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revisions No. 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005 to place on record before this Forum. Additional 3rd opposite party admitted
the fact that the complainants deposited Rs. 15000/- for a period of 18 months under the cumulative scheme interest at 16% on 01.11.1998, which was due on 01.05.2000, but the complainants have not yet received the refund.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
Whether the complainants are entitled to get any amount from opposite parties?
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Other reliefs and costs.
In support of the complaint, complainants have filed affidavit of themselves and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. No affidavit by way of evidence filed by opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 furnished the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revisions 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005.
Points (i) to (iii):- As per the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revisions 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005, Consumer Fora all over the country were directed not to entertain any fresh complaints against Lloyds Finance company. For pending matters, it was held that consumer Fora would pass appropriate orders crystallizing the amount payable, but no order for recovery shall be passed by the Consumer Fora. In the said order it was held that it would be open to the complainant to inform the committee with regard to amount payable by the company to the complainant on the basis of order which may be passed by the Consumer Fora. Further, Consumer Fora were directed not to issue any further summons or warrants against the company in liquidation and against special committee members appointed by the High Court of Bombay.
The operating portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: “In this view of the matter, particularly when Liquidation petition for winding up is pending before the High Court of Bombay and the fact that a Special Committee is appointed and functioning under the High Court and that it has drawn a plan for repayment to the depositors/investors as quoted above, we hereby direct that neither the State Commissions nor the District Fora would proceed further with the disputes which are pending against Lloyds Finance Ltd. However, it would be open to the District Fora or State Commissions to finalise the amount payable by the company(payment of interest and compensation would be subject to final orders of Special Committee or the Liquidator) and/or to direct the investors to lodge a claim before the Special Committee”. In the light of the aforesaid order, we are inclined to pass an order crystallizing the amount payable by the opposite parties.
The fact in the case is that complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- as Fixed Deposit for 18 months at 16% interest rate on 01.11.1998 with 1st opposite party Lloyds Finance Ltd., through the additional 3rd opposite party Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd.(Investment Consultants) pursuant to the notification inviting deposits by the company. 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party, M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. Ext. P1 is the copy of the notification inviting the said deposits by the 1st opposite party. Terms and conditions governing the deposit schemes are seen printed on the second page of Ext. P1. Ext. P2 is the copy of deposit receipt issued by the 1st
opposite party to complainants. A perusal of Ext. P2 would disclose that Deposit Receipt No. is
0598004666/1, amount of deposit is Rs. 15000/-, period of deposit is 18 months, rate of interest per annum is 16%, date of deposit is 01.11.1998, maturity date of deposit is 01.05.2000, maturity value of deposit is Rs. 18740/- name of the scheme is monthly multiplier and the amount repayable to either or surviver. Submission by the complainants is that on demand of maturity of the said FD by the complainants, opposite parties paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- only on 15.07.2001(Ext. P4) leaving a balance of Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter issued by the Lloyds Finance Ltd. to the complainants regarding the repayment of deposits as per Company Law Board Order. As per Ext. P3, the fixed deposit would be repayable at the rate of 30% each during the 1st and 2nd years and 40% in the 3rd year with accrued interest upto the date of maturity as contracted and at the rate of 12.5% till
the date of actual payment. It has been contended by the complainants that during 2002 original F.D receipt was submitted to the 1st opposite party with request to pay the second instalment. Submission
by the complainants is that there was no response from opposite parties, inspite of several reminders as Exts. P5 to P10. 1st and 2nd opposite parties never filed version denying the said transaction. Additional 3rd opposite party admitted the said transaction. From the affidavit by way of evidence filed
by the complainants and Exts. P1 to P10 it is evident that Lloyds Finance Ltd. are bound to repay the complainants Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest of Rs. 3740/-. Non-refund of the said amount would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Deficiency in service proved.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 15740/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint (08.12.2003) till payment. Payment of interest would be subject to final order of the Special Committee or the Liquidator. Complainants shall inform the Special Committee with regard to the amount payable by opposite parties 1 & 2 on the basis of this order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.