CC No.926.2017

Filed on:05.05.2017

Disposed on:27.07.2018

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF JULY 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.926/2017

PRESENT:

 Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

         PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                       MEMBER

                                 V/S

ORDER

BY SMT.L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 05.05.2017 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay sum of Rs.7,17,000/- and penal rate of interest for the delayed period @ 18%.    

2.   The brief facts of the complaint as under:

In the complaint, the Complainant submits that the Complainant applied for the fixed deposits in the prescribed Application Form of Opposite Party through authorized Local Broker M/s SMC Global Securities of Opposite Party at Bangalore and the receipts was delivered at her residential address at Bangalore assuring to deposit the interest amount every quarter on the first of following quarter directly in her Bank Account with SBM, Sarakki Branch, Bangalore and the repayment of matured amount would be made on the date of maturity as per the “Terms and Conditions” and as stipulated in the Acceptance of Deposit Rules, 1975.The warrants for the repayment shall be delivered at her residential address well in time before the date of maturity.The details of deposits are given below.

All the above deposits had matured on the dates mentioned in the table.The duly discharged FDR’s were sent by her well in time for repayment and the same had been received by Opposite Party. The Complainant have been reminding Opposite Party through multiple phone calls and email requesting to send repayment warrants without delay.But till date she have not received the repayment warrants. Thus Opposite Party had failed/willfully defaulted to repay the matured deposit amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- on demand on the dates of maturity mentioned in the FDR’s in violation of “Companies Rule 1975 & 2013” and the delay in repayment attracts penal rate of interest of 18% under clause 8A of said Rule 1975 and Clause-17 of Rule 2013.Opposite Party was directed by Honorable CLB New Delhi to clear all deposits including premature deposits on or before 30.09.2015 and was given multiple extensions and the final date being 31.03.2017.He did not comply with but, Opposite Party has arbitrarily extended it till date in violation of Clause-6.3 of 1975 & Clause 3(7) of 2013 company (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules that state “The Company shall not reserve to itself directly or indirectly a right to alter, to the prejudice or disadvantage of the depositor, the terms and conditions of the deposit after it is accepted” therefore, the services of Opposite Party are unfair and spurious.Opposite Party keeps on postponing repayment of matured deposits at his whims and fancy arbitrarily.Moreover, the company had stopped paying quarterly interest on maturity of deposits depriving of livelihood of the Complainant.The Opposite Party is constantly and regularly followed up and reminded about the non-repayment of matured deposits.The Opposite Party was reminded by calling/sending email multiple times on their office phone number/email id mentioned at the back of the FDR.Inspite of requests and reminders, the Opposite Party had not effected repayment of matured deposit failing in his commitments and thereby causing inconvenience and huge loss to her.The Opposite Party is regulated and duty bound by “Companies Rules 1975 & 2013” for the acceptance of deposits from the public and repayments and interest payments to depositors under deposit rules of the Companies Act, 1956 & 2013 of the central Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India.Opposite Party is regulated and monitored by Government Agencies like Ministry/Department of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies and SEBI.He is duty bound to return maturity deposits on demand.Hence, this complaint.

3. Even though, notice was served on the Opposite Party, Opposite Party fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte. 
4.   In support of the complaint, the Complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard Argument of the Complainant.
5.  The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?

2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

6. Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:- On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the Complainant, it reveals that the Opposite Party is a Private Limited Company.  The Complainant invested a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with Opposite Party.  It is supported by FDR receipts.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed her affidavit, in her sworn testimony, she has reiterated the same and also in support of her testimony, she produced copy of fixed deposit schemes form, copy of FDR receipts, copy of email communication, copy of statement of account.  By looking into these documents, it clearly shows that Complainant deposited total Rs.7,00,000/- on 22.01.2013 in different FDR numbers each contains Rs.1,00,000/- maturity date is on 22.01.2016 interest at 12.50% p.a.  The FDR number is 00394634, 00394635, 00394636 00394637, 00394638, 00394639, 00394640.  During the maturity date of the FDRs Complainant received only interest warrants and not principle amounts.  The Complainant continuously contacted Opposite Party through emails.  But the Opposite Parties never responded the emails.  The Complainant contacted further through emails.  But Opposite Party neither replied nor fulfill the demand of the Complainant.  By all these, it is very clear that the Opposite Party failed to refund FD’s amount infavour of Complainant.  This evidence of the Complainant also remains unchallenged.  Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it clearly goes to show that the Opposite Party has not rendered good service to the Complainant.  This fact is clear by looking into the email correspondences.  If at all, the Opposite Party has rendered good service i.e., refund the principle amount with interest to the Complainant as per this company terms and conditions, the Opposite Party ought to have produced relevant evidence.  But there is no such evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has neither gave interest nor refunded the principle amount infavour of the Complainant.  Due to the deficient act of Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.  To disbelieve the version of the Complainant nothing was on record.  Inspite of repeated requests, the Opposite Party never bothered to fulfill the demand of the Complainant, thereby this clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  But the Complainant in her evidence clearly state that Opposite Party refund the principle amount on 07.07.2017 but not paid interest.  Hence, this point is held in affirmative. 

 8. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.

The Opposite Party is directed to refund interest at 12.50% p.a. on principle amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from 23.01.2016 till the date 06.07.2017.

The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony.

The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of this litigation to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay aforesaid amount within 45 days from the date of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 27^th day of July 2018)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Bharathi Murthy, who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of Fixed Deposit Schemes.
2. Fixed deposit receipts.
3. Email Correspondences.
4. Bank Statements.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

                             Nil

List of documents filed by the Respondent:

                             Nil

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT