Tribunals and Commissions

BRIHASPATI SHARMA vs CYBER SPACE LIMITED

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 24 January 2006 · Citation: 2007 1 CPJ 278 : 2007 1 CPR 136

HON’BLE JUDGES
Palok Basu , R.N.Prasad , Vinod Shankar Chaubey J.
RESULT
Allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 746 words
1.

BRIHASPATI Sharma, complainant No. 1, his wife Mrs. Reba Sharma, complainant No. 2 and their daughter Mrs. Surabhi Kaushik, complainant No. 3 with the permission of the Commission filed a joint complaint with the allegations that the aforesaid three complainants made investments in Fixed Deposit Scheme of Cyber-Space Limited at the instance of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and their officers who have been arrayed in the complaint as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

2.

SOME of the fixed deposits matured for payment during the months of June 2001, July 2001, August 2001 and some of them matured in the year 2002 on different dates but consequently it occurred from the information gathered through other sources that the offices of the opposite parties were closed and the officers employed had left with the result there was no substance in waiting for the period. Further it was also mentioned in the complaint that the officers were lodged in District Jail, Lucknow having been involved in some economic scam and also being accused in some criminal case with regard to the deposit of other depositors. Consequently, a complaint for claiming relief as contained in the relief clause was filed. Notices were issued to the opposite parties but inspite of notice they did not appear and ultimately vide order dated 30.7.2004 the proceedings against the opposite parties were allowed to proceed ex parte and the complainants were asked to furnish their evidence in support of their complaint. Certain documents along with affidavit were filed by the complainants. In the affidavit what was claimed as relief in the complaint has been summarised and it was made to understand that certain payments were made and consequently what was exactly needed from the opposite parties was given in the shape of chart which forms part of the affidavit dated 4.1.2005 as Annexure No. 1.

Annexure-1 discloses that complainant No. 1 Brihaspati Sharma has claimed the principal amount which was initially deposited Rs. 1,95,000 was partly paid for a sum of Rs. 39,000 and thus the claim was still pending Rs. 1,56,000. Likewise in the case of Mrs. Reba Sharma initial deposit by way of principal amount was Rs. 3,30,000, out of which Rs. 66,000 was admitted to have been paid and thus there was a dues of Rs. 2,64,000. Similarly, in the case of Mrs. Surabhi Kaushik the initial deposit by way of principal amount was Rs. 42,000, out of which Rs. 8,400 has been given and thus the dues was Rs. 33,600 and thus the total deposits which was to be paid by the opposite parties as per the calculation comes to Rs. 4,53,600.

3.

IN the instant case, it is clear that inspite of service of notice to the opposite parties none of them appeared to contest the case, therefore, there is no evidence in rebuttal and the complainant by way of evidence as well as affidavit as permissible under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act has conclusively proved that the opposite parties have not made payment of Rs. 4,53,600 for which they are entitled in our opinion as on maturity. It was also argued by Mr. T.N. Saxena that over and above, they are also entitled for the interest as payment was not made on due time. Also it was further submitted that the interest was also to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the F.D.R. and that way it was argued that interest is also right of the complainants. We are satisfied on this count and we are of the view that 9% interest shall be sufficient by way of claim against sum of Rs. 4,53,600. Since in the instant case a lot of harassment of the depositors/complainants took place, Mr. Saxena was justified in arguing that a compensation for mental pain and agony was also justified. A sum of Rs. 20,000 has been claimed for mental and physical agony which in our opinion is justified claim and that is granted. A sum of Rs. 10,000 towards expenses and cost of the case including the fees of the lawyer has been claimed which too in our opinion is justified claim. ORDER

4.

COMPLAINT succeeds and is allowed for a sum of Rs. 4,53,600 + Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 10,000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. COMPLAINT allowed.