C.C filed on: 11-12-2008

Disposed on: 26-03-2009

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

CC.No.175/2008

Dated of this 26th day of March 2009

Present:
Sri.K.M.Thammaiah President
Sri.D.Shivamahadevaiah Member
Smt.Girija Lady Member
Between:
G.Mahalingaiah s/o. Siddananjaiah,
Aged about 78 years, residing at
Ganaganga Nilaya, 3rd Main road, Complainant
3rd Cross, Siddaganga Extension,
Tumkur town
(By advocate Sri.B.Shivakumar)

AND


The Manager, Sector office,
SAHARA Parivar, Opposite party
Post office building,
SS Puram, Tumkur town
(By advocate Sri.K.S.Jagannatha)

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 award and order against the Opposite Party (hereinafter called as the OP for short) to pay the interest amount of Rs.75,000/- on the deposit amount together with accrued interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit of amount till its realization and impose penalty of Rs.25,000/- due to deficiency in service.

3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:
It is his case that, the complainant had deposited the amount under Shara Swarna Yojana with the OP firm under five different deposit receipts as here under;

Receipt No.

Dated

Amount in Rupees

3875348337

22-05-2003

1,00,000-00

38551452598

13-10-2003

10,290-00

38551452600

13-10-2003

1,00,000-00

38551452594

13-10-2003

10,000-00

38551452596

13-10-2003

10,000-00

4. It is further submitted that, the OP had agreed to pay interest for the above said deposit amounts, as per the terms of the firm. Accordingly, the complainant had deposited the same and waited till the expiry date of deposit. It is further submitted that, after maturity, the complainant approached the OP to pay the deposited amount with accrued interest on the deposits. However, the OP has paid only the principal amount i.e. deposited amount in favour of the complainant, but failed to pay the interest amount. For which, the complainant made several requests and approaches.. The OP who undertook to pay the interest after some time did not keep up his words.

5. When all his attempts and persuasion had failed, on 8-8-2008, he wrote a letter to the OP. Though it was served on the OP, he did not comply with his demands. Thus, he had shown his negligence and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

6. The OP who has been notified of the complaint entered appearance through his counsel and resisted the same by filing his objections.

7. The gist of the objections is as follows:
In the objections filed by this OP, it is contended that, the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the complaint is not maintainable under law and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.

8. This OP while emphatically denying all the complaint averments as false and untenable, interalia pleaded that, as per the records maintained by this OP that, the complainant had invested with the opponent under five different deposits and subsequently reinvested the amount with the company and later on converted into another scheme account No.12342100042 and subsequently drawn the entire amount after submitting the five deposits. It is contended that, the complainant has also drawn the commission on the deposits in SAHARA City Home account plan and got prizes and gifts.

9. It is further contended that, on 6-7-2009 the complainant came to the office of the OP, abused him in a filthy language and manhandled by hitting the table with his hands and loudly saying “I will die if he will not settled my account”. He also threatened the OP and his staff that he would leave a death note in event of not settling his account. It is further submitted that, the OP tried to control him with fair attitude and told him that, the complainant has drawn all the settlement and executed a voucher. Thus, it is contended that, there was no dues whatsoever from this OP nor there is any deficiency in service.

10. It is further submitted that, the complainant is also working as agent of this OP alongwith his son Siddarama Prasanna under agent code No.123410445 and 123410803, since a long time. It is alleged that, the complainant has taken all dues from the office of the OP when one Mr.Badrinath was in-charge of the sector. It is contended that, taking advantage of non posting of a manager, he has drawn all the amounts by surrendering the original bonds during December 2007. Therefore it is contended that, this OP is not liable to pay any amount as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the complaint.

11. In support of the case, the complainant and the opponent have filed their affidavits and also they have also pressed into service of several documents. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on records.

12. The questions that arise for our considerations are:
1)Is there any deficiency of service by the OP?
2) Is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as claimed?
13. Our findings on the above questions are here under.
Point No.1: Affirmative
Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

14. Before proceeding to discuss the crux of the matter, it is relevant to state few undisputed facts of the case. The fact that, complainant was an agent of OP, and deposited certain sum of money under the five different scheme, and received the principal amounts covered under the deposits are concerned there is no dispute. The dispute between the parties is that, the interest amount of Rs.75,000/- accrued on the deposit was not settled by the OP, when the principal amount was paid to him. This allegation is emphatically denied by the OP and interalia contended that, a sum of Rs.80,673/- being the interest portion of amount has been paid to the complainant on 24-12-2007 and there is nothing due by the OP. Therefore, now let us proceed to examine the crux of the matter.

15. The OP has filed a voucher dated 24-12-2007 indicating the payment of Rs.75,673/- to the complainant. He has also produced one document which is in Hindi language indicating the payment of Rs.80,673/- That payment relates to payment towards SAHARA City Homes booking advance. That document is not relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties. The document purported to have been executed by the complainant is under serious dispute. The complainant has not only denied the receipt of the said amount but also the signature that appears in the said document.

16. It is necessary to note that, the OP who pleaded discharge of the amount under a disputed document never sought for the opinion of finger print and hand writing expert. Therefore, this forum has to adopt the method of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted the signatures of the complainant. A careful comparison of the admitted signature of the complainant found in various documents including vakalath, complaint, affidavit with the disputed signature found in the voucher, we are of the clear opinion that, the disputed signature does not tally with the original in any manner. The style, structure, flow of ink, method of signature and combination of the words or alphabets do not tally with the admitted signature of the complainant in any manner. It is also relevant to note that, it is evident from the payment voucher dated 24-12-2007 that, the company has made it a rule to make payment exceeding Rs.19,999/- through account payee cheque or demand draft. When the company itself has evolved such procedure, we fail to understand has to how a sum of Rs.75,673/- came to be paid though a voucher by disobeying its own rules. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that, the OP has failed to establish his discharge plea. On comparison of the signature found in the disputed document, when this Forum has to come to conclusion that the said signature does not belong to the complainant, the OP is bound to make good of the amount. Non-payment of the amount by the OP certainly amounts deficiency in service. Therefore, we hold that, the OP is liable to pay interest amount of Rs.75,000/- as prayed for by the complainant together with damages for deficiency in service at Rs.5,000/-.

17. Being that opinion we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part with costs directing the OP to pay a sum Rs.80,000/- (Rs.75,000/- towards interest and Rs.5,000/- towards damages) within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry an interest at 10% per annum from the date of this complaint i.e. 11-12-008. The cost of the proceedings is quantified at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced on open forum this 26th day of March 2009.



(Smt.Girija) (Sri.D.Shivamahadevaiah) (Sri.K.M.Thammaiah)
Lady member Member President