ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

The complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant had joined in the Ten Years Social Welfare Scheme of the respondent company on 11.1.1994 vide certificate No.E-1716124. As per the scheme the complainant will be entitled for Rs.30,474/- after the payments of the prescribed instalment from 11.1.1994 to 11.1.2004. The complainant remitted entire instalments without any default. But the respondent company did not refund Rs.30,474/-. The complainant had requested for the maturity value many times and on 7.4.04 he was received a cheque for rs.22,068/-. But the balance amount was not paid still repeated demands. So a notice was sent on 19.4.04. Even though a reply was received there was no remedy. Hence this complaint.

2. The 2nd respondent has filed a version to the following effect. They have admitted that the complainant had joined in the 10 year Social Welfare Scheme by paying Rs.450/- for 10 year totaling Rs.18,000/- would have obtained on maturity Rs.25,200/- as Endowment sum and Rs.5274/- as guaranteed bonus totalling Rs.30,474/-. The endowment sum of Rs.22,068/- was paid to the complainant on the assumption that the complainant has paid only 31 quarterly instalments from 11.1.94 to 11.7.01. However the complainant has stated that he had paid all the 40 instalments. But the details of payment were not furnished by the complainant. It was again searched thoroughly and found that the dues in respect of 8 instalments were entered in suspense account since the details of payment of the instalment due on 11.10.01 were not furnished by the complainant. If the required particulars are furnished in respect of payment the respondent is ready to give the entire endowment sum together with guaranteed bonus less the amount already paid. Hence dismiss the complaint.

3. In an additional counter filed by the 2nd respondent it was stated that the payment for the 38th, 39th and 40th instalments are delayed payments and the 40th instalment was paid only after the maturity and the complainant is not entitled to the full maturity value. They also stated that they are ready to refund Rs.4050/-. Hence dismiss the complaint.

4. The points for consideration are:
(1)Is the complainant eligible to get the full maturity value?
(2)Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P6 and R1 to R7.

6. Points: The complaint is filed to get the balance amount from the respondent company. The complainant was a certificate holder of respondent of their “Ten years Welfare Endowment Certificate Scheme”. As per the scheme the complainant will be entitled to get Rs.30,474/- after the payments of the prescribed instalments from 11.1.94 to 11.1.04. According to the complainant he had remitted entire amount, but was returned only Rs.22,068/- and Rs.8406/- remain. So he has filed this complaint.

7. In the counter the 2nd respondent stated that they had paid Rs.22,068/-on the assumption that the complainant has paid only 31 quarterly instalments from 11.1.94 to 11.7.01. Only the payments during that period were entered in the endowment certificate. But as per the letter of the complainant they made a search and found that payments against dues from 17.1.02 to 19.1.04 totalling 8 instalments were entered in suspense account since the details of payment were not furnished. Even after demand from the 2nd respondent the complainant did not furnish the details. According to the second respondent as per condition No.4 of the Privilege and Conditions under which the complainant had joined the scheme the complainant is not entitled to the full maturity value and they are ready to refund Rs.4050/-.

8. According to the complainant, he had remitted all the instalments in time. So according to him, he is entitled to get back the entire amount. The only contention of the second respondent is that as per the conditions of the “Privileges and Conditions” under which the complainant had joined the scheme the complainant is not entitled the full maturity value. This is because some payments are after grace period and the last instalment was after the maturity period. We have perused the documents and seen that the payments for the 38th and 39th instalments are after the grace period allotted and the 40th instalment was on 19.1.04 and the due date was 11.10.03. The transaction between the complainant and respondents is a contract and both are governed by the terms of contract. As per condition No.4 of the privileges and conditions, the certificate will be treated as discontinued and only the amount of deposit made will be refunded and the complainant will not get the full maturity value. So the complainant is only entitled for the deposited amount of Rs.4050/-.

9. There are requests from the respondents to furnish the details of payments but the complainant did not respond.

10. According to the complainant he had remitted amount from the deposits stated in Ext. P3 pass book. But Ext. P3 passbook does not reveal the entire payments. Ext. R2 series receipts reveal that the payments for the 38th, 39th and 40th instalments are delayed. So the complainant is only entitled for the refund of the deposited amount.

11. In the result, complaint is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay amount of Rs.4050/- (rupees four thousand and fifty only) to the complainant within one month. In the circumstances there is no order as to cost and compensation.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 18th day of March 2009.



......................
Padmini Sudheesh

......................
Rajani P.S.

......................
Sasidharan M.S

S. ANITHA
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE and INVESTMENT Co. Ltd
...........Respondent(s)





ORDER


The case of complainant is as follows: The complainant was a policyholder of respondent and joined in a 10 year Welfare Endowment Scheme conducted by the respondent vide No.E-1655294/973. The payment due date of the scheme was on 7.7.03. On 25.6.03 the father of complainant telephoned to the respondent and wanted to issue discharge form and voucher. The respondent agreed to send the same on that day itself. The brother of complainant also requested for the discharge form and voucher. On 16.7.03 the complainant received a letter in post card sent by a stranger stating that the policy became due and in order to refund the amount the complainant had to reach the St. Thomas College.


The transfer of certificate particulars to a 3rd party is unfair. Subsequently on 26.7.03 and 1.8.03 also the complainant received post cards of the same demand. At last the complainant approached the agent who had enrolled her in the scheme. The date stated in the discharge form is 7.7.03. There is delay in issuing discharge form. A cheque for an amount of Rs.30,435/- accepted by the complainant only on 16.9.03. This is belated payment. Hence this complaint.

2. The counter is as follows: The complaint is not maintainable on the very fact that the complainant has executed discharge form cum voucher dated 7.7.03 for Rs.30,435/- in full and final settlement of all dues under the certificate. Usually discharge form cum voucher will be sent to the complainant before the date of maturity by ordinary post. Since it was told that the original discharge form was not received by the complainant or was misplaced, a duplicate one was issued on 16.9.03. On receipt of the duplicate discharge form cum voucher duly filled up and signed by the complainant cheque for Rs.30,435/- drawn on the Union Bank of India, Thrissur Branch was sent to the complainant.


The cheque amount was encashed by the complainant. Having executed discharge form and accepted the amount without any protest the complainant is not entitled to claim any more amount under the said certificate. There has been a concluded contact. The complaint is a reproduction of the lawyer notice dated 19.11.03. A reply had been sent showing the real facts. There are several field workers for the Company to get doorstep service to the certificate holders. They may have called the certificate holders to any convenient place. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss the complaint.

3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is there any deficiency in service?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.

4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 and R1 to R4 and the deposition of RW1.

5. The points: The case of complainant is that she being the holder of 10 year Welfare Endowment Scheme of respondent entitled to get the amount within a reasonable time after the due date. As admitted by both the payment due date was 7.7.03. On 25.6.03 her father telephoned the respondent and requested to send discharge form and voucher. But it was not done. Her brother also requested on behalf of her. Still it was not send by the respondent. While so she had accepted Ext.P1 series post cards demanding to reach her different places at Thrissur. At last she handed over the certificate to the person who had enrolled her in the scheme. On 16.9.03 only she has received the cheque for an amount of Rs.30,435/-. So this complaint has filed.

7. In the counter the respondent stated that since it was told that the original discharge form was not received by the complainant or was misplaced, a duplicate one was issued on 16.9.03. On receipt of the duplicate discharge form cum voucher duly filled up and signed by the complainant a cheque for Rs.30,435/- was sent to the complainant on 17.9.03. Delay if at all in issuing the cheque was caused on account of the delay in submitting the discharge form by the complainant.

8. The complaint is filed to get interest for the belated payment and also for compensation. As admitted by both the complainant was a holder of 10 years Welfare Endowment Scheme conducted by the respondent. As per the scheme the complainant will get on maturity Rs.30,435/-. The due date of her certificate was on 7.7.03. According to her before that on 25.6.03 her father telephoned the respondent and requested for discharge form and voucher. She also stated that her brother the nominee, contacted the respondent and requested to issue discharge form. But the discharge form cum voucher were not accepted by the complainant. According to her the delay of payment was only because of the delay in issuing discharge form and voucher. She has produced Ext. P2 series the copy of the discharge form and voucher. In that the date of signature put by the complainant shows as 8.9.03.


The date of discharge form shows as 7.7.03. It is also stated in the discharge form that the due date as 7.7.03.
So it can be say that the discharge form was made on 7.7.03 itself or before that. Ext. R1 is the original discharge form produced by the respondent. There is no date of issuance of the form. There is endorsement made by the respondent as 16.9.03. It does not mean that the form was issued on 16.9.03. Moreover the signature put by the complainant was on 8.9.03. The date stated below the certificate number is 7.7.03. There is no mention of date in the column prescribed in the form just below the reference number.

9. The definite case of complainant is that there was delay in issuing discharge form cum voucher. According to the respondent the delay caused on account of the delay in submitting the discharge form by the complainant. She states that on 25.6.03 her father and after that her brother requested for discharge form cum voucher. But there is no evidence brought by the complainant to establish these contacts. RW1 deposed that they have despatch register and also stated that they have no register for ordinary posts. He further states that he deposes only under presumptions and he did not see any document.


In the counter the respondent admired their services as social welfare activities and absence of keeping despatch registers shows their silly mind in handling the deposit schemes. According to them on maturity the complainant is entitled for Rs.30,435/-. During cross-examination he stated that the maturity amount will be paid within 10 days after the due date. So it does not mean that after 10 days of the due date the certificate holders are entitled for the maturity value only. So also the complainant is entitled for interest claimed.

10. In the counter the respondent stated that since it was told that the original discharge form was not received by the complainant or was misplaced a duplicate one was issued on 16.9.03. The complainant has no such case. Her definite case is that there was delay in issuing duplicate discharge form. If that be so as stated by the respondent it is their duty to show the intimation from complainant about the loss of original discharge form or misplacement. The respondent had to submit the dispatch register and prove their case. The respondent miserably failed to establish their case. RW1 even stated that the book containing the name of certificate holders is an open book. So anybody can peruse it.


If such leniency is taking, it was their bounden duty to keep despatch registers and prove their case. He also admitted during cross examination that there is no entry of date of issuance of Ext. R1 discharge form. Since there was request on the part of complainant, the respondent had to enter the date of issuance in Ext. R1. According to us there was no such request from complainant as stated by the respondent as original discharge form was lost or misplaced. So it can easily understand that this is a false story developed by the respondent. The issuance of discharge certificate in time was not done by the respondent. So the complainant is entitled for interest as prayed in the complaint.

11. The complainant has produced Ext. P1 series post cards to show that she had accepted letters from people those who are totally strangers to her. But it was justified by the respondent by saying that the field workers may have called the certificate holders to any convenient place for helping and solving the problems of the certificate holders. In the letters “convenient places” noted are Science Block of St. Thomas College, Thrissur and near the Fish Market etc. The policy holders who are in need of obtaining maturity amount no need to go the places specified by the agents of respondent. This is a bad practice and cannot be encouraged. But the respondent encouraged these practices as the means of promoting their business. So the complainant is entitled for compensation also.

12. In the result, the complaint is allowed as prayed with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month.

Sri.D.Kemparaju s/o. Doddayallaiah,

Aged about 55 years,

Residing at No.43, “Anjandari”, Complainant

Bhagavathi Lay out, Aralimarada Palya

Road, Sira gate, Tumkur-572 106





vs



1. The General Manager,

Peerless General Finance and Investment

Co. Ltd, Central Maturity Cell,

13-A, Dacres lane, 3rd Floor,

Calcutta-700 069

2. The Branch Manager, Opposite parties

Peerless General Finance and Investment

Co, Ltd, 2nd floor, Bhargava complex,

Opp: Govt. Hospital, Vidyodaya law

College road, BH Road, Tumkur





ORDER



This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act for short)



2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an order against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter called as the OPs for short) to settle his claim in respect of the certificate No.E8067262 and to award compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 14-8-2008 till the date of realization with costs and for such others reliefs.



3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is contended that, the complainant was one of the customers of the OPs. He had invested money in “Growing Interest Scheme” and obtained two certificates bearing No.E8067261 and E8067262 on 14-8-2001 at Hassan branch. The said certificates came to be matured on 14-8-2008. It is further contended that, in respect of the said certificates, he had sent claim forms on 21-5-2008, along with originals and all the concerned documents to the office of the 1st OP.



4. It is further contended that, the OPs have sent one cheque bearing No.159154 towards settlement of the claim in respect of the certificate No.E8067261only, but they have not sent another cheque in respect of the certificate No.E8067262. As such, the complainant wrote several letters to the 1st OP, but the OPs remained silent without any communication or settlement of the claim.



5. It is further contended that, 9-2-2009 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the 1st OP seeking settlement of the claim in respect of the certificate No.E8067262. The said legal notice was duly served on the 1st OP on 13-2-2009. The OPs till today have not taken any action in this regard, eventhough, the said legal notice was duly served on the 1st OP and thereby committed deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and frustration to the complainant. Therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation. Hence, this complaint.



6. The OPs who have been notified of the complaint entered appearance through their counsel and resisted the same.



7. The gist of the written statement is as follows:

In the common written statement filed by these OPs, it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, since the averments are false, baseless and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.



8. It is further admitted that, the 1st OP is the registered office situated at Calcutta and 2nd OP is the branch office at Tumkur. It is further admitted that, the complainant had availed service by investing money in “Growing Interest Scheme” vide certificate No.E8067261 and E8067262 on 14-8-2001 at Hassan branch and the said certificates were due for payment on 14-8-2008. Claim forms were sent by the 1st OP to the complainant on 21-5-2008. These OPs while disputing the other complaint averments as false and untenable interalia pleaded that, eventhough the said amount was invested at Hassan branch, the complainant without approaching the said branch has filed this complaint. The complainant has not submitted certificate No.E8067262 to the OP’s office. Hence the payment has not been made.



9. It is further submitted that, the amount involved in certificate No.E8067262 has been sent with good gesture to the complainant from Hassan branch on 6-5-2009 vide cheque No.402121 dated 2-5-2009 through RL receipt No.2061/6-5-2009. Thus it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service or a cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint. It is contended that, the alleged cause of action has been invented for the sake of filing this complaint alone with a malafide intention to harass these OPs. Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the complaint.



10. In support of the case, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavits. They have also pressed in to service relevant documents. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on record.



11. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1. Is there any deficiency of service committed by the OPs?

2. Is the complainant entitled for the relief as prayed for?



12. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

Point No.1: Affirmative

Point No.2: As per order



REASONS



13. Perused the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. It is pertinent to note that, on 7-5-2009 the branch accountant of Hassan branch had written a letter to the Branch Manager, Tumkur branch (2nd OP) indicating the issuance a cheque No.402121 dated 2-3-2009 in respect of certificate No.E8067262 in favour of D.Kemparaj and for needful action. It is seen from the affidavit of the complainant more particularly at Para No.-5 that, after receipt of a notice from this forum, the OPs have sent a cheque towards the said certificate. The facts narrated at Para No.5 of the affidavit in this regard read as thus:



“5. It is submitted that after service of notice from this Hon’ble Forum, the opposite parties have sent cheque towards the said certificate. Hence, I respectfully that this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to grant and award compensation with cost and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of the justice and equity”.



14. Therefore, from the available records, it is clear that, the claim of the complainant, in respect of the amount covered under certificate No.E8067262 is fully settled. Now, what remains to be determined is whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and for costs of the litigation? In the complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/-. It is pertinent to note that, though the certificate No.E8067262 was sent alongwith other one which is evident through various correspondences made by the complainant on different dates, the amount in question was not settled despite receiving a legal notice dated 9-2-2009 issued by the complainant. This conduct of the OPs has made the complainant to run from the pillar to post seeking justice. This situation has arisen only because of the deficiency of service committed by the OPs. At least, the OPs could have woken up, when they received a legal notice sent by the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the complainant was subjected to harassment and humiliation. In the light of fact that, the claim of the complainant has been satisfied by the OPs during pendency of the proceedings, under the head of mental agony, we propose to award compensation of Rs.2,500/-. In addition to that, we also propose to award cost of the litigation at Rs.500/.





15. Being that opinion, we proceed to pass the following:



ORDER



The complaint is allowed in part with costs directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of litigation within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the said sum shall carry an interest at 10 % per annum from the date of this complaint.