BAGAMPRIYAL FINANCE vs J.SUGANYA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25th day of July, 1996 in O.P. No. 52/1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin.

THE appellants are the opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5, the first respondent is the complainant while the second and third respondents are respectively the opposite parties 3 and 6. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The first opposite party is a Private Limited Company, a financial institution. The opposite parties 2 to 6 are its Directors.

THE complainant, it appears, deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the first opposite party on 1.8.1994. THE first opposite party agreed to pay interest @ 3% per mensem. THE interest for every month, it appears, was paid to the complainant. On 1.8.1994 an interest to the tune of Rs. 600/- had been paid to the complainant in advance. On 22.8.1994 the complainant, it appears, withdrew a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the deposit so made. Consequently, the first opposite party on and from 1.9.1994 the accrued monthly interest on Rs. 15,000/- had been paid to the complainant @ Rs. 450/- per mensem. THE interest was thus paid upto 1.2.1995. THE deposit was made for a period of one year. Even after the maturity of the deposit, the opposite parties refused to honour their commitment in repaying the deposit amount to the complainant. In such a backdrop and setting the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

THE opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed objections contending that the complainant cannot at all be construed as a consumer qua the opposite parties. THEre is no deficiency in service on their part. THE complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The 6th opposite party in pith and substance contended that she seceded as director of the first opposite party Company on and from 14.9.1994 and consequently she is not liable for any claim. What is further contended is that the deposit receipt is a bogus and fictitious one brought into being the collusion of the directors of the first opposite party Company. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently directed them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from 4.2.1995 till date of payment and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs to be paid within two months from the date of its order.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsels M/s. Kumar Chidambaram, S. Sridhar and N. Ramiah.

RESPONDENT-1/complainant and also R2/O.P. 3 and R3/O.P. 6 despite service, however, remained absent. When this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 were called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. We are, however, inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, on perusal of the materials placed on record.

Even at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. Ex. A1 is the copy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt. On perusal of the same, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 1.8.1994 with the first opposite party financial institution. What is further revealed is that the first opposite party on such deposit agreed to pay interest @ 3% per mensem. As a matter of fact, the first opposite party Company paid interest on 1.8.1994 a sum of Rs. 600/- on the deposit so made. Subsequently, on 22.8.1994, the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the deposit so made. Consequently, the first opposite party Company paid interest on and from 1.9.1994 till upto 1.2.1995 every month Rs. 450/- to the complainant. When the deposit got matured, the opposite parties failed to repay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. To say as had been said by the opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 that the complainant cannot at all be construed as a consumer qua the opposite parties cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance at our hands. The moment the first opposite party financial institution accepts the deposit as having been made by the complainant and issues a deposit receipt containing the terms and conditions of the repayment of the deposit amount, it goes without saying that a contract comes into existence between the first opposite party Company and its directors on the one hand and the complainant on the other hand. Under the terms and conditions of the deposit receipt marked as Ex. A1, it is incumbent on the part of the opposite parties to pay the amount of the deposit to the complainant on the date of maturity. Admittedly, the opposite parties did not comply with the terms and conditions which would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. This apart, the opposite party No. 6 contended that she was not a director of the Company and she seceded as director of the first opposite party Company on and from 14.9.1994. The contention so put forward does not receive any sort of a significant support in the form of a document. Such a contention has to be simply brushed aside. As such, all the opposite parties are liable for the repayment of the deposit amount of Rs. 15,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from 4.2.1995 till date of payment as had been said by the Forum below. This apart, the Forum below also awarded costs quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, which, we feel, is reasonable not calling for interference.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We, however, make it crystal clear that the order of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with by the opposite parties 1 to 6 within a month from the date of receipt of our order, or otherwise, it would be perfectly open to the complainant to invoke jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act, 1986"). Appeal dismissed.