BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 30^th DAY OF AUGUST 2017

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the matured deposit Rs.4,35,652/- along with penal rate of interest @ 18% for delayed payment as per clause 8A, to pay Rs.3,000/- towards incidentals, Rs.7,000/- towards mental agony and trauma.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant belong to middle class and for her son’s education she was saving her hard earned money into the fixed deposit schemes of the OP-1 hoping that the schemes are genuine and as per guidelines stipulated in “The Companies (Acceptance Deposits) Rules, 1975” under companies Act, 1956 and 2013 under cumulative deposits scheme and as per the terms and conditions laid in the application form.  OP-1 is engaged in real estate business and mobilizes fixed deposits for its operational needs from public as per the guidelines laid down in Companies Act, 1956 & 2013.  OP-1 is registered and listed both in BSE and NSE manufacturing company, incorporated on 11.12.1998, having its registered office at New Delhi.  OP-2 is a branch office of Unitech Ltd., locally promoting the deposit schemes located at Bangalore.

The complainant applied for the fixed deposits in the prescribed application form of the OP-1 through OP-2 at Bangalore and the receipt FDR No.1235083 was delivered to the complainant’s residential address at Bangalore assuring to repay the full amount through cheque at registered address 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 warrant for the repayment ought to be delivered at the complainant’s residential address well in time before the date of maturity i.e., on 16.08.2016.

The duly discharged FDR was sent by the complainant on 04.06.2016 for repayment and the same had been received by OP-1 on 04.06.2016.  The complainant had been reminding OP-1 through e-mail since August 20^th, 2016 and requesting to send repayment warrant and there was no response from OP-1.  Thus OP-1 failed to repay the matured deposit amount on demand in violation of “Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and 2013” and the delay in repayment attracts penal rate of interest at 18% under clause 8A of said rule.  OP-1 & OP-2 are constantly and regularly followed and reminded about the non-repayment of matured deposit.  The OP-1 was sent e-mails and copies marked to OP-2 asking the party to make the repayment without delay.  In spite of request and reminder, OP-1 had not effected repayment of matured deposit failing in their commitments and thereby causing inconvenience and loss to the complainant.  The complainant on several occasions met OP-2 and urged them to prevail on OP-1 to effect the repayment.  OPs failed to refund the deposit due on due date.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Under the circumstances, complainant has filed this complaint against OPs for appropriate relief.

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OPs.  In spite of service of notice OPs remained absent without sufficient reason or cause.  Hence OPs were placed ex-parte and the case was posted for filing affidavit evidence of the complainant.

4.  So as to prove her case, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence in support of her complaint reiterating the complaint averments and produced the copies of documents.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged.  OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6.  We have perused the documents produced by the complainant.  The various documents produced by the complainant coupled with sworn testimony of the complainant establishes that, she has invested a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- she has produced an application form of OP-1 through OP-2 as Annexure-1 and the receipt FDR No.1235083 for Rs.3,00,000/- deposited on 16.08.2013 interest @ 12.50% for the period of 36 months issued on 26.08.2013 by the OP to complainant is produced as Annexure-2.

7. The duly discharged FDR was sent by the complainant on 04.06.2016 for repayment and the same had been received by OP-1 on 04.06.2016.  The complainant has been reminding OP-1 through e-mail since August 20^th, 2016 and requesting to send repayment warrant without delay.  The OP-1 has sent e-mails and copies marked to OP-2 asking to make the repayment without delay which is produced as Annexure-3.  Inspite of request and reminder, the OP-1 has not effected repayment of matured deposit failing in their commitments and thereby causing inconvenience and financial loss to the complainant.  The conduct of OPs in not refunding the matured amount with interest amounts to unfair trade practice and grave deficiency of service.

8. The OPs did not appear and contest the claim put forth in the complaint.  The conduct of OPs in not refunding the deposit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and non payment of interest on time amounts to deficiency of service.  The non refunding of the fixed deposit amount must have put the complainant to hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  OPs without any reason has withheld huge amount of the complainant.  We are satisfied that the complainant has successfully proved the deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OPs are liable to refund total fixed deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12.50% p.a from the date of deposit till the date of maturity.  Further OPs are directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a from the date of maturity till the date of realization and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for having caused hardship, inconvenience and mental agony together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-. 

9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following.

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part. 

OPs are directed to refund fixed deposit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs only) to the complainant together with interest at 12.50% p.a from the date of deposit till the date of maturity also to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of realization.  Further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for having caused hardship, inconvenience and mental agony together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.

OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 30^th day of August 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 07.08.2017.

1. Shreyasi Bandyopadhyay

                 OPs  -       Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*