Nagarjua Finance

**adv.singh** · 01-30-2010, 04:42 PM

C.C.NO.40/2009
Between

D. Sripani

D/o D. Subrahmanyam

Aged 23 years, residing at

C-101, Ananda Enclaves, Anandagajapathi Road,

Opp: Three Temple,

Vizianagaram. --- Complainant.

And :

M/s Nagarjua Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Office at Plot NO:55, Nagarjuna Hills,

Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

--- Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma Advocate for Complainant and opposite party set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party praying this forum to pass an order cum award in favour of the complainant against the opposite party by directing to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest at 16.65% from the date of maturity i.e., 16-06-2002 till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony and for costs and other reliefs which the Forum deems fit and property in the circumstances of the case.

After filing this complaint, notice was ordered but personal notice was not served, published in newspaper EENADU of the concerned district. Even after publication, opposite party fails to appear before this forum, remained absent set exparte.

The complainant filed evidence affidavit contending that the complainant as per the advertisement given by the opposite party and agent of the opposite party approached the complainant at Vizianagaram and pursued the complainant and after satisfying complainant paid Rs.20,000/- as deposit on 16-12-1997 for a period of 54 months and the opposite party agreed to pay Rs.40,000/- on 16-06-2002 and issued FDR to that effect. After 16-06-2002 the complainant approached the opposite party for payment, but the opposite party fails to pay the amount. The opposite party failed to pay the maturity amount on the due date to the complaint, inspite of repeated requests and demands and personal approaches made by the complainant. On 29-04-2002 the opposite party received the originals of said FDR and issued acknowledgment and also agreed to pay the compound interest and the maturity amount to the complainant immediately, after the orders of the Company Law Board at Chennai. The complainant is under the impression that after the orders, of CLB, she would receive the amount and till today she has not received any amount from the company.

In the meanwhile, the complainant heard that the Honourable High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad has dismissed the case of the opposite party and the same was published in newspapers. The complainant is entitled for compound interest at 16.65% p.a. Hence this complaint.

Heard complainant’s counsel. Perused the entire material available on record.

The opposite party remained set exparte, the amount payable to the complainant by June 2002, now it is in the month of November 2009 even after lapse of 7 years, 5 months, the opposite party was not paid the amounts due to the complainant. There is no dispute regarding deposit of amount. On the other hand, as seen from the copy of the acknowledgment, the opposite party received the FDR and gave acknowledgment and permission to pay the amount in due course, but the complainant submitting that the said amount was not paid. The above submission is quite acceptable, as there is no other material available on record. On the other hand, the contentions raised by the complainant appears to be just and reasonable.

As per AIR 1994 SC 787 equivalent to 1993 (III) CPJ, Page-7 para-2 in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta.

Para-2: To begin with the preamble of the act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, ‘to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers’. Use of the word “protection” furnishes key to the minds of makers of the act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the state to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a heaven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘a network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of public bodies which are degenerating in to store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting for it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.

As per 2002(6)SCC 635 equivalent to AIR 2002 SC 2931(J.J. Merchant (Dr) Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi) it was held as follows:

“para-7 One of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that a quasi-judicial machinery has been sought to be set up at the district, State and Central level. These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance with the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided. The object and purpose of enacting the act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and deficient services. Prior to the act, consumers were required to approach the civil court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is a known fact that decision in a suit takes years.

As per 1995(3) SCC 583:AIR 1995 SC 1428: 1995(2) CPR

11 : 1995(17) CLA 137: 1995(2) CPJ 1 SC: 1995(2) An WR 10 (CPA) (Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute) it was held as follows:

Para-4 - “The quasi-judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by the act known as District Forums/State commissions and the national Commissions are not courts though invested with some of the powers of a civil court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals brought in to existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. These forums/commissions were not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing expensive and speedy resolution of goods and services. It was intended to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed of by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The act provides for “Business-to-Consumer” disputes and not for “Business to Business” disputes.

The act of the opposite party in not paying the amount to the complainant even after lapse of 7 years 6 months, amounts to unfair trade practice in addition, deficiency of service. As such the complainant is entitled for return of the amount with interest @ 16.65% p.a. as there is no mention in the FDR that the complainant is entitled for compound interest. As the amount was not paid for 7 years, 6 months after due date created tension, insecurity, financial problems to the complainant, as such complainant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and thus petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1500/-inclusive of Advocate Fee of Rs.500/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with interest @ 16.65% p.a. from the due date i.e., 16-06-2002 till the date of payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and the opposite party is further directed to pay costs of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) inclusive of Advocate Fee of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from this day.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced us in the open Forum, this the 13th day of November, 2009.

**adv.singh** · 02-01-2010, 10:44 AM

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.95/2009

Between:

1) K.V.V.S. Subrahmanyeswara Rao

S/o Venkata Surya Satya Narayana

Hindu, male, aged 48 years, R/o Vempa village

Post, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dist.,

2) K.A.S. Kameswari

W/o K.V.V.S. Subrahmanyeswara Rao,

Hindu, male, aged 45 years, Housewife,

R/o Vempa village

Post, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dist.,

3) K. Radha Venkata Satya Kumari alias

Tanuku Radha Venkata Satya Kumari

W/o Mallikharjuna Rao, Hindu, female,

Aged 27 years, Housewife, R/o Vempa village

Post, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dist.,

4. K. Gouri Kameswari alias Tupakula Gouri Maheswari

W/o Uma Maheswara Surya Venkata Rama Krishna

Housewife, Hindu, female, aged 25 years, R/o Vempa village

Post, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dist.,
5. K.M.N.V. Satya Surya Prasad

S/o Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Hindu,

Male, aged 22 years, Student, R/o Vempa village

& Post, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.Dist., -- Complainants

And

Managing Director

Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.,

Plot No.55, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta

Hyderabad -- Opposite Party

This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 26-11-2009 and on perusing the Complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri. B.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite party remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per. Sri. B.Apparao, Member)

This is a complaint filed under Sec. 12 of C.P. Act. The case of the complainants is that the opposite party is carrying on Finance business under the name and style of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., at Hyderabad. The complainants claimed to have made the following fixed deposits with the opposite party :

S.L

Deposit No.

Maturity amount

1

060900900428

50,000

2

045107001787
60,000

3

C50107001235
16,170
4

C60900900429

75,000

5

C50107001236

99,716

6

C50107001237
86,240
7
C50107001238

86,240

After the date of the maturity of the above said deposits, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for payment of the matured value of the said FDRs by surrendering the original FDR bonds and the opposite party acknowledged the same on 16-6-2003. Subsequently, in spite of repeated requests made by the complainants the opposite party has failed to pay the amounts payable under the above said FDRs till date. As such, the complainants got issued a legal notice on 12-10-2004 demanding for pay the value of the FDRs, but the opposite party having acknowledged the legal notice failed to respond thereof. Hence the complaint.

2. It is prayed to direct the opposite party to pay the matured value of Fixed deposits amount of Rs.8,48,711/- with interest at 24% pa., from 16-6-2003 to 27-4-2006 along with damages and costs..

3. Even after publication, the opposite party failed to appear before this Forum and remained exparte.

4. In support of their case, the 1st complainant filed his own affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the other complainants and relied upon documents marked as Ex A.1 to Ex A.4.

5. Arguments of the complainant heard.

6. Now the points for consideration are;

1) Whether the complainants could prove their case as alleged in the complaint ?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs ?

Point No. 1 :

As seen from the documentary evidence on hand, the complainants made 7 fixed deposits with the Opposite Party and the said 7 deposits matured under the original of Ex A.2 and they are ripe for payment. It is evident that the opposite party assured payment of the maturity value of the FDRs by duly passing the acknowledgement receipts bearing Nos.11730, 11731, 11732, 11735, 11734, 11733 and Acknowledgment Dt.4-5-2001 mentioning Deposit No.C45107001787 marked as bunch under Ex A.1. It is the duty of the opposite party to pay the value of the FDRs as and when the deposits matured, but the silence on the part of the Opposite Party in not paying the maturity value of the FDRs even after the date of maturity and even after receipt of legal notice under the original of Ex A.3 constitutes the deficiency in service. In the absence of any plea from the side of the opposite party and as the opposite party remained exparte, the case of the complainant deserves to be accepted. The affidavit testimony, the complaint and the documents tendered in evidence, remained unrebutted and unchallenged. The complaint is therefore held proved. Point No: 1 is answered accordingly.

Point No: 2

In view of finding on point No:1 the complainant is entitled to the relief.

In the result, the compliant is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the maturity value of fixed deposits under Ex A.1 (7 Acknowledgment Receipts ie., 11730, 11731, 11732, 11735, 11734, 11733 and Acknowledgment Dt.4-5-2001 mentioning Deposit No.C45107001787) with interest at the contracted rate on the matured value from the date of maturity till the date of realization and also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousands only) towards compensation for mental agony along with a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs to the complainants within one month from the date of due dispatch of free copy of this order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the 30th day of November, 2009.

**adv.singh** · 02-12-2010, 01:55 PM

Consumer Case No. 4 /2009

Between

Yaramati Sita, W/o.Joga Rao,

D.No.3-17-32A, aged years, housewife,

Godarigunta, Kakinada.

…Complainant

And

M/s.Nagarjuna Finance Limited,

H.No.1-2-597/12,

Valmikinagar, Domalguda,

Lower Tank Bund Road,

Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director.

…Opposite party.

This case coming on 11-11-2009 for final hearing, before this Forum in the presence of Sri P.Dorabbai, Peddapuram, advocate for the complainant and as the opposite party being called absent and set exparte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following;
O R D E R

(By Sri P.Vijender, President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

This complaint is under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to pay the maturity amount of fixed deposit and to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant by not paying the maturity amount.

2. The brief facts are that the opposite party is the company registered under the Companies Act carrying on finance business having its branches all over Andhra Pradesh and one at Kakinada. The opposite party called upon the public to deposit the amounts with it promising to pay the amount of maturity with interest. In pursuance of it, the complainant deposited the amount under four receipts dated 15-4-2001 Bearing Nos.C45107001999 to C450102002, the maturity date fixed by the opposite party is 15-4-2001. Under each of the receipt, the amount payable by the opposite party is Rs.14,000/-. After the maturity period, the complainants surrendered the original Fixed Deposit Receipts and issued acknowledgement on 6-4-2002 in the office of the opposite party. The opposite party while acknowledging receipt of the Fixed Deposit Receipts, intimated the complainant by giving extract of the Company Law Board order dated 29-2-2000 that the Company Law Board rescheduled the repayment of Fixed Deposit

: 2 :

amounts made by the complainant. As per the said order of the Company Law Board, the fixed deposit amounts upto Rs.50,000/- shall be repaid with interest from the date of deposit till the date of repayment within 33 months from the date of maturity or from the date of order of the Company Law Board whichever is later at 30% thereon in the first year and 35% of the principal amount and interest thereon in the second year and balance of 35% of principal amount and interest in the third year. So, the date of repayment of the amount due under the deposit receipts as fixed by the Company Law Board is also expired. The complainant made request on 3-10-2002 to the opposite paty for payment Fixed Deposit amount with interest and it was requested by the employee of the opposite party that the funds are expected to be received on or before 30th May, 2003 for payment of amounts to the depositors but failed to pay any single pie. The opposite party in soliciting deposits having offered high rate of interest while accepting fixed deposits and having failed to pay the amount on maturity date on one ground or other indulged unfair trade practice It also failed to repay the amount even as per the reschedule initiated by the Company Law Board in its order dated 29-2-2000 and it amounts to deficiency in service and caused lot of mental agony which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Since the opposite party is not coming forward to pay the amount and not giving any reply, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint for the reasons stated supra.

3. The opposite party chosen to remain exparte after service of notice by substitute service. .

4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ex.A-1 document, which is acknowledgement in proof of receiving the Fixed Deposit Receipts four in number for maturity amount of Rs.14,000/- each.

5. On hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, the point for consideration is:

Whether the complainant is entitled for the directions sought for and whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

POINT:- The admitted facts are the opposite party solicited the public at large for depositing amounts by offering to pay high rate of interest and in pursuance of it, the complainant made deposits with the opposite party and as per the schedule fixed by the opposite party, the amount will be matured on 15-4-2001 and each of the deposit amount on maturity comes to Rs.14,000/- And after maturity period, the Fixed Deposit Receipts were delivered to the opposite party under acknowledgement Ex.A-1 but the opposite party failed to pay the amount as promised at the time of soliciting deposits. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party approached the Company Law Board under the Companies Act seeking extension of time for repayment of the amounts to

: 3 :

the depositors and the Company Law Board in its order dated 29-2-2000 rescheduled the repayment of the amounts of Fixed Deposit holders. In case of the fixed deposit amounts upto Rs.50,000/- the maturity amount to be paid in three installments within a period of 33 months. But the opposite party neither paid the amount as per the reschedule nor made any offer promising to pay the amount at later stage which necessitated the complainant to approach this Forum.

After the maturity period was expired and the complainant is entitled for the payment of the maturity amount on the fixed deposit with interest at prevailing bank rate of interest 10%. Soliciting the public to make deposit with a promise to repay the amount at higher rate of interest and accepting the deposit offered by the public is certainly a contract between the depositors and the opposite party. The opposite party is expected to render the service enjoined on him but failed to render it and thereby caused mental agony to the depositors who have deposited their hard earnings with the opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay the maturity amounts with interest and also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony due to deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly.

6. In the result, the opposite party is directed to repay the maturity amount of Rs.14,000/- each under FDR receipt Nos. C45107001999 to C45107002002 ( four deposits) with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of its maturity, i.e., 15-4-2001. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony to the complainant.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 7th day of December, 2009.

Nagarjua Finance

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Nagarjua Finance

Similar Threads

Rs. 55,417.00 Fraud by a private finance company in Delhi, Company Name:City Finance

Fraud by a private finance company in Delhi, Company Name:Jeet Finance

Bajaj Finance, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.

MFI Finance

Rs. 55,417.00 Fraud by a private finance company in Delhi, Company Name:City Finance

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions