CC No.421/2017

Filed on:18.03.2017

Disposed on:20.11.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.421/2017

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 18.03.2017 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to refund to the Complainant No.1, fixed deposit amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest against FDR No.1195064 and directing the Opposite Parties to refund to the Complainant No.2, fixed deposit amount of Rs.45,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- along with interest against FDR No.1193258 & 1233395 and direct the Opposite Parties to refund to the Complainant No.3, fixed deposit amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest FDR No.1193542 and further direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation for mental agony and financial loss along with cost of the litigation.   

2. The brief facts of the complaint as under:

In the complaint, the Complainant states that the 1^st Complainant invested Rs.40,000/- with Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2.  The FDR No.1195064 maturity date 05.09.2015 and 2^nd Complainant invested Rs.45,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, the FDR Nos.1193258 and 1233395 maturity date 28.08.2015 and 09.09.2016 and 3^rd Complainant invested Rs.40,000/- FDR No.1193542, maturity date 28.08.2015.  The Complainant submitted that above mentioned FDRs with Opposite Parties to make payment of maturity amount including the principal and the interest.  The Complainants further submits that the Complainant No.1 has been the sole earning member of the family.  Foreseeing the vulnerability of non-pensionable retirement in April 2015 from the services of his employer, a Private Company, the above Fixed Deposits were made during 2012 for a period of three years with a strong faith that the maturity value will surmount the financial crisis, if any, during the post-retirement period.  The Unitech was recommended by Bajaj Capitals a most reliable and very good option for investment.  Even today, the websites of both these companies claim that they are the market leaders and the best performing Companies in the Country.  The original Fixed Deposit receipts after maturity date were duly surrendered with acknowledgement to Bajaj Capital for payment of maturity value.  The Complainants have been regularly following up for refund of these fixed deposits personally with Bajaj Capital and over phone with Unitech.  But till today the Fixed Deposit amounts with interest remains unpaid and is overdue.  Due to this the Complainants suffered mental agony and financial loss.  The Complainant No.1 & 2 unable to satisfactorily meet the daily sustenance nor able to support the daughter’s education.  On 13.02.2017 the Complainant sent notice to the Opposite Parties.  The said notice served to the Opposite Parties.  But the Opposite Parties not respond the same.  The latest balance sheet summary of Unitech is extracted from their website, it is evident that Unitech has been consistently making profit, Rs.2916 lakhs in 2015 and Rs.3,584/- lakhs in 2016.   There is no reason why they cannot refund the Fixed Deposits to the Complainants, even after two years delay.  The Complainants submits that they spend their hard earned money.  They were worried about loss of money.  But the Opposite Parties never responded to repay.   Hence, this complaint.

3. Even though, notice was served on the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2, Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 fails to put their appearance.  Hence placed ex-parte.

4.   In support of the complaint, the Complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard the arguments of the Complainants.
5.  The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?

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 Complainants, it reveals that the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 is a private Limited Company.   The Complainant No.1 invested Rs.40,000/- with Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 and 2^nd Complainant invested Rs.45,000/- & Rs.50,000/- with Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 and 3^rd Complainant invested Rs.40,000/- with Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2.  This fact is supported by the FDR receipts.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant No.1 filed his affidavit.  In his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and also in support of his sworn testimony, he has produced copy of FDR receipts, copy of notice, copy of balance sheet of Unitech Extract from their websites.  By looking into these documents, it clearly shows that the Complainant No.1 deposited Rs.40,000/- on 05.09.2012 maturity date is on 05.09.2015, the FDR No.1195064.  The Complainant No.2 deposited Rs.45,000/- on 28.08.2012 maturity date 28.08.2015 FDR No.1193258 and again deposited Rs.50,000/-, on 09.09.2013 maturity date 09.09.2016 FDR No.1233395. The Complainant No.3 deposited Rs.40,000/- on 28.08.2012 maturity date 28.08.2015, FDR Number is 1193542.  During the maturity date, the Complainants repeatedly requesting the agent of Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Bajaj Capital through which they made deposits to refund the FD amount with interest.  Bajaj Capital received the original FD receipts from the Complainants and acknowledged same and assured Complainants that they will informed this to the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  The Complainants contacted further through emails.  But the Opposite Parties neither replied nor fulfill the demand of the Complainants.  By all these it is very clear that the Opposite Parties failed to refund the FD amount infavour of the Complainants.  This evidence also remains unchallenged.  Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it clearly goes to show that the Opposite Parties have not rendered good service to the Complainants.  This fact is clear by looking into the various mail correspondences.  If at all Opposite Party Nos 1 & 2 were rendered good services i.e., refund of FD amount with interest to the Complainants as per their Company terms and conditions, the Opposite Parties ought to have produced relevant evidence.  But there is no such evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainants that the Opposite Parties have neither given interest nor refunded FD/principal amount infavour of the Complainants.  Due to the deficient act of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants suffered mental agony and financial loss.  The Complainant No.1 is only the sole earning member of the family.  The Complainants finally send notice on 13.02.2017.  The said notice served to the Opposite Parties.  But the Opposite Parties neither replied notice nor fulfill the demand of the Complainants.  To disbelieve the version of the Complainants, nothing was on record.  Inspite of repeated requests, the Opposite Parties never bothered to refund the FD amount of the Complainants.  Thereby, this clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this point is held in the affirmative.

ORDER

The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2.

The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.40,000/-to Complainant No.1, Rs.45,000/- plus Rs.50,000/-to the 2^nd Complainant and Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant No.3 along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of realization. 

The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainants for causing mental agony. 

The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards cost of this litigation to the Complainants.

The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are granted 30 days’ time 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, 20^th day of November 2017).

        MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.B.S.Nagaraja, who being the Complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of Fixed Deposit Receipts
2. Authorization Letter of Complainants No.2 & 3
3. Proof of Opposite Parties as Market Leaders,
4. Notice to Opposite Parties for refund of Fixed Deposits.
5. Latest Balance Sheet Summary of Unitech extracted from their website

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

                             Nil

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                             Nil

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT