K.C.Thimmaiah vs BAJAJ ELECTRONICS

IN this complaint, the complainant has sought refund of the deposits made by him with the opposite party with interest thereon.

THIS complaint was filed on 26.3.1990. It could not be taken up for enquiry as there was stay order issued by the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka. After the stay was vacated, the enquiry was taken-up. A notice was issued to one Sri. Paramjit Singh, M/s. Man-Jog Builders, Bangalore. Mr. Paramjit Singh, denied his liability regarding the deposits made by the complainant. So the complainant submitted to make M/s. Bajaj Electronics, a Proprietory concern of Sri. Manjit Singh son of Mr. Awatar Singh, Bangalore, to be made as a party and issue notice to him as the deposits were made with M/s. Bajaj Electronics". This submission of the complainant was accepted as it is evident from the order sheet dated 1-10-92 and a notice was issued to M/s. Bajaj Electronics the Proprietory concern of Mr. Manjit Singh. The opposite party, Mr. Manjit Singh, appeared and filed statement of objections.

It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party floated a financing scheme under the name of M/s. Bajaj Electronics, Bangalore, and invited the deposits from the public at large. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the joint name of himself and his wife under the said scheme with the opposite party, as per Ex. C-l, on 3.12.1983. The date of its maturity was 6.12.88 and the amount was repayable with interest at 24% p.a. The complainant, under the said scheme, deposited a further sum of Rs.5,000/- as per Ex.C-2, on 16-4-1984 repayable after a period of 5 years with interest at 24% p.a. thereon. The complainant, made a further deposit of Rs. 30,000/- under the joint name of himself and his wife on 1-8-1985, as per Ex.C-3. The amount under which was repayable with interest at 24% p.a. after a period of 5 years. The complainant, made further deposit of Rs. 10,000.00/- on 11.1.1985, as per Ex. C repayable after expiry of a period of 5 years with interest 24% p.a. thereon.

THE complainant further averred that he had earlier deposited a sum Rs. 15,000 /- with the opposite party in repayment of which, the opposite party gave a cheque for a sum of Rs . 18,600/- on 31.1.1989, as per Ex. C-5. But the said cheque was dishonoured. THE complainant, further averred that he had received interest every month upto January 1986 on those amounts deposited by him from the opposite party. But thereafter the opposite party failed to pay the interest and refused to refund the deposit made by the complainant THE complainant on the basis of these averments, submitted that the opposite party committed a deficiency in rendering service as a Banker and so sought the refund of the amount deposited by him with interest thereon. The opposite party filed its statement of objections. It has not denied specifically the averments made by the complainant regarding the various deposits made by him with the opposite party. The opposite party, only urged that the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' and therefore, the complaint under the provisions of the Act, was untenable.

DURING enquiry, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 and got Exs. C T to C-8, marked in evidence. Exs. C-1 to C-7 are all xerox copies. The complainant has produced an endorsement issued by the police, as per Ex.C-8, to show that the original of all the documents were produced by the complainant before the police in connection with the investigation in Crime No. 162/1989 under Section 420 I.P.C. registered against the opposite party. The opposite party had not taken any objection which xerox copies were marked in evidence. The opposite party has also not denied these documents in the objections filed by it and in the affidavit of the opposite party, Mr. Manjit Singh. The opposite party gave affidavit in evidence. We have perused the pleadings of the parties and also heard the complainant and the learned Counsel for the opposite party

THE points that arise for our consideration are- (1) Whether the complainant can be classified as a "consumer" under the provisions of the Act? (2) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

REGARDING Point No. (1): The complainant has averred that the opposite party had floated a financing scheme in the name of M/s. Bajaj Electronics under which it had invited deposits from the public and the opposite party had issued several publications asking the public at large to deposit the amounts promising to refund the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. This fact has not been denied by the opposite party. It is also evident from the receipts issued by the opposite party, as per Exs. C-l, C2, C-3, C-4 and C-7 that the opposite party took deposits promising to pay interest at 24% p.a. and promising to repay the said amount on the date of its maturity, that is, after a period of 5 years. This would clearly go to show that the opposite party had floated a financing that is, banking service scheme and so the complainant by making the deposits under the said scheme had hired the services of the opposite party. So the complainant, having regard to these facts and under the circumstances of the case , is a ''consumer'' under the provisions of the C.P. Act and ''complaint'' is tenable under the said Act. So the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.

Regarding Point No. (2): The opposite party has not denied the fact of various deposits made by the complainant with it as averred by the complainant. The complainant has stated in his evidence in detail with reference to the receipts under which he made the deposits with the opposite party, the opposite party has not denied these deposits made by the complainant pas averred by him in the cross-examination of the complainant. The opposite party has put the following question to the complainant in the cross-examination: It is not true to suggest that I voluntarily deposited the amounts under Exs. C-1 to C-5." From this, it is evident that the opposite party virtually admitted the various deposits made by the complainant as averred by him. So it is clear that the complainant has satisfactorily proved the fact of various deposits made by him with the opposite party, under Exs. C-1 to C-5.

THE complainant has admitted the fact of receipt of interest from the opposite party upto January 1986. THE complainant, has in this regard, in his cross-examination, stated thus: "THE opposite party had promised to pay the interest every month. Upto Jan.1986, the opposite party was paying the interest."

From this material, it is clear that the complainant had received the interest from the opposite party on the various deposits that he had made with the opposite party upto January 1986. In view of this fact, the complainant would be entitled to the interest only from February 1986 onwards. In view of these facts and under the circumstances, we record our finding regarding point No. (2) in favour of the complainant. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. THE opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.68,600/- covered under Exs. C-1 to C-5, with interest at 18% p.a. from 1.2.86, till the date of payment. THE opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant towards costs of these proceedings. THE opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within a period of two months from this day. Complaint allowed with costs. ___________