Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
25th day of January 2023
CC310/20 filed on 14/08/2020
Complainant : Varghese Rayappan, Rayappan House, Kallur.P.O,
Thrissur- 680 317.
(By Adv. Rajith Davis & P.V. Muneera, Thrissur)
Opposite Party : Vattakuzhy Trades and investments, Nayarangadi,
Kallur. Rep.by Proprietor, Freejo.P.Vattakuzhy,
Vattakkuzhy House, Kallur.P.O, Thrissur- 680 317.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri.Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under Section 35(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant states to have deposited with the opposite party a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 14/11/17 vide receipt No.1267/1718 and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 03/06/19 vide receipt No.168/1920, the rate of interest assured by the opposite party being 16% p.a. The opposite party is alleged to have made the complainant believe that they would return the amount to the complainant whenever required so by the complaint. But the opposite party is alleged to have not so far returned the said deposits to the complainant, but had paid the assured interest till 14/11/19 for the former deposit and till 03/12/19 for the latter deposit. Thereafter the opposite party ceased to pay the interest and also failed to return the deposit amount, despite several requests to that effect made by the complainant. Hence the complaint. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prays for an order directing the opposite party to return the deposit amount, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
Commission issued notice to the opposite party, but was returned with the postal endorsement “Addressee left without instruction”. Newspaper publication of the notice was also effected, but the opposite party failed to enter appearance or file their version before the Commission and hence proceedings against the opposite party were set ex-parte.
3) Evidence :
The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 & A2,apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The proceedings against the opposite party being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission scrupulously examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is the deposit receipt No.1267/1718 dtd. 14/11/17 issued by the opposite party infavour of the complainant, receiving a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Ext. A2 is the deposit receipt No.168/1920 dtd.03/06/19 issued by the opposite party infavour of the complainant, receiving a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the act of the opposite party is tantamount to unfair trade
practice ?or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part
of opposite party ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of the deposits he
made? Also, whether the complainant is entitled to receive any
compensation from the opposite party ? If so its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
Ext. A1 evidences the opposite party’s receipt of deposit worth Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant. Ext. A2 document evidences the opposite party’s receipt of deposit worth Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant. But the opposite party who paid the assured interest till November 2019 for Ext.A1 deposit and till December 2019 for Ext.A2 deposit, ceased to continue the payment of interest thereafter. The opposite party allegedly evaded return of the said deposits to the complainant, as well. Evidently there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.Collecting deposits from people offering attractive interest rate and subsequently fleeing with the funds of the poor investors, is certainly an unfair trade practice. Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 unequivocally reveals that opposite parties’ activities like accepting deposits etc. fall well within the definition of “service”. The return of the Commission’s notice to the opposite party with the postal endorsement of “addressee left without instruction” and the failure of the opposite party to contest the case despite newspaper publication of notice, further unveil the opposite party’s malafide intent to defraud and deceive the poor consumers who invested money with them.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we find no reason to disbelieve the alleged failure on the part of the opposite party in returning the deposits received from the complainant, as well as in promptly paying the assured interest on the said deposits. The said act of the opposite party constitutes deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
7) Point No (ii):
As elaborated supra, point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant. The opposite party is bound to return the deposits received from the complainant i.e. Rs.8,00,000/- vide Ext. A1 receipt and Rs.5,00,000/- vide Ext. A2 receipt (altogether Rs.13,00,000/- ).
The opposite party’s misdeed of non - payment of assured interest and failure to return the deposits even after several requests to that effect made by the complainant, have certainly inflicted financial loss, mental agony and hardship on the complainant. The opposite party has necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite party a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and hardship he underwent and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to
- refund to the complainant the total amount of deposits received from him i.e. Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh only),
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only)towards compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and hardship he underwent, and
- a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The above direction shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 25th day of January 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 deposit receipt No.1267/1718 dtd.14/11/17 issued by the opposite party
infavour of the complainant, receiving a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.
Ext. A2 the deposit receipt No.168/1920 dtd.03/06/19 issued by the opposite
party infavour of the complainant, receiving a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Id/- Member
