AGRO GOLD PLANTATION AND RESORTS LTD. vs K.D. MULEY

THE appellant had floated various schemes for deposits such as regular income bond certificate Dhanpati bonds, etc. As many as 22 persons who have been arraigned as respondents deposited with the appellant different amounts on different dates for the period of three years which on maturity were payable with interest @ 24% p.a.

THE grievance of the appellant is that respondents have shown in their complaint before the District Forum the amount due on maturity as amount deposited by the respondent. THE complaints of the respondents were allowed by a common order dated 16.1.2000 whereby the appellant was directed to pay back amount deposited by each complainant along with agreed rate of interest upto the date of maturity and the appellant was further directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the whole of the amount becoming due to be paid to the complainant on the date of maturity from the date till the date of payment besides cost of Rs. 300/-. Said order has been challenged through this appeal insofar as the allegation of deficiency in service in not returning the deposits on the dates of its maturity is concerned, there is no scope to go into its correctness as the appellant had admitted the deposit made by the respondents and the amount payable to them on the maturity of the deposits. Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony, harassment or loss or damages suffered by him on account of deficiency in service or on account of unfair trade practice.

The instant case is a case of deficiency in service. The deposits made by the respondents were not paid back along with the agreed rate of interest which was 24 p.a. It appears that the respondents were lured by promising interest @ 24% p.a. which was not available in any scheme even by Banks and floated by the Government authorities or even the finance companies. The object of protecting the interests of consumers is to ensure in such like cases at least refund of the principal amount by them with the finance companies along with reasonable rate of interest as available with Government Authorities of financial institutions like Banks, Post Offices, etc. where the circumstances so demand that by ordering the company to pay higher interest even if it is agreed rate of interest depositors are even deprived of the principal amount. In the instant case, managing director and other directors who happen to be husband and wife have already suffered imprisonment for seven months on account of criminal liability fastened unto them by way of criminal complaints filed with the police.

IN such circumstances, the order for paying agreed rate of interest 24% which was nowhere prevalent in any financial institution of the Government would be counter productive as depositors were lured more by greed than by reasonable expectation of interest. Such an order if passed is impossible to be implemented or enforced. Taking overall view of the matter, we find that the interest of the respondents be well protected if the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay to the respondents the principal amount deposited by them with 9% interest for period of three years besides the costs and compensation awarded by the District Forum till the realization of the amount. However, the respondents shall be entitled to seek execution of this order if the appellant fails to make payment within three months.

A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal disposed of.