BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 26/2012.
THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- M. Earanna S/o. Narsanna, age 47 years, Occ;
Business, R/o. Maddipet, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Manager, Sahara City Home Marketing &
Sales Corporation Raichur Branch, near Vegetable Market, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to pay sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards interest
on the amount deposited with mental agony and damages and cost..
Date of institution :- 31-03-12.
Notice served :- 18-04-12.
Date of disposal :- 14-12-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Vinod Sagar, Advocate.
Respondent represented by Sri. Avaneesh Taranath, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant M. Earanna against opposite Sahara city Home Marketing Corporation, Raichur, U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards interest on the amount deposited with mental agony and damages and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, in the year 2007 he invested a sum of Rs. 1,00,637/- towards purchase of site (BR-Type-A) measuring to the extent of 65.8 Sqft situated in Gulbarga. But opposite developer not developed the site, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, hence he requested the opposite through legal notice dt. 21-06-2011 to refund the deposited amount with interest. As per his request opposite refunded an amount of Rs. 1,00,637/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. But not paid interest at the rate of 12% p.a. He invested the amount with opposite for commercial purpose. Hence opposite shall pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 03-02-2007 upto date.
3. Opposite Sahara City Home Marketing Corporation Ltd., appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed its written version by denying the agreement with respect to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the deposited amount. As per the request of complainant, it refunded the amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as full and final settlement. Hence it is not liable to pay excess interest as contended by the complainant. The complainant settled his account by passing necessary voucher towards full and final settlement. As such, he cannot raise any objections after settlement. Complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint. Accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the deposited amount but opposite not paid such rate of interest to him he only paid 6% interest and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?
2. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(2) In-view of the finding on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NOs.1 &2 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. Written arguments filed. On the other hand, authorized signatory of the opposite corporation was filed, who is noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked
7. We have gone through the facts pleaded in the complainant, his affidavit-evidence and we are very much that, complainant invested the said amount with opposite corporation for commercial purpose and filed this complaint under C.P. Act. Para-3 on Page No-2 of complaint as well as also, his affidavit-evidence at Para-3 on Page No-2. He admitted that, it was commercial transaction. The same fact was admitted in his legal notice Ex.P-4. In view of the facts and circumstances, the complainant is not at all a consumer U/sec. 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. Hence, the present complainant before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable.
8. Another point for our consideration in this case is, whether opposite has not fulfilled its promise in paying interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant, in this regard. We have gone through Ex.P-3 legal notice issued by complainant to opposite dt. 21-06-2011, it not discloses the rate of interest required to be paid on the amount deposited, simply, he requested the opposite to refund the deposited amount with interest, thereafter complainant not inclined to continue the said transaction accordingly, he executed Ex.R-3 booking cancellation form, Ex.R-1 refund advise dt. 08-07-2011 these documents shows that complainant took back the deposited amount with 6% interest from the opposite by executing a document Ex.R-1 towards full and final settlement and no further claim.
9. Ex.R-1 is dt. 13-07-2011 he received the entire amount interest at the rate of 6% p.a. without any objections, but Ex.P-4 dt. 24-02-12 legal notice issued by him after more than seven months from the date of receipt of the entire amount by claiming that, he is entitled to 12% p.a. on the deposited amount is not correct, as such we are of the view that, complainant now cannot claim after execution of Ex.R-3 & Ex.R-1 hence, we have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite corporation.
10. The learned advocate for opposite contended that, complainant cannot raise consumer dispute because he agreed to settle the dispute by invoking Arbitration clause under the Act, we are not agreeing with the submission of the settlement of the learned advocate for opposite, in view of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.
11. From all the facts and circumstances stated above, with our reasonings this complaint is not maintainable much less we have not noticed any deficiency in service by the opposite, accordingly, we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO-2 :-
12. In view of the finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.
POINT NO.3:-
13. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed,.
Intimate the complainant accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-12-2012)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
*RK*
