MAN-JOG ASSOCIATES vs D.SHEKANTA RAO

THIS appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 15.6.1992, passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in complaint No. 945/91, directing the opposite party to pay the complainant, a sum of Rs. 6,500/- with interest thereon. 2.The opposite party was running a financial scheme under which the complainant deposited a sumof Rs. 6,500/- for which the opposite party agreed to pay interest at Rs. 130/- per month till the expiry of period of 5 years and thereafter to refund the said amount to the complainant. 3.The complainant, further averred that the opposite party paid the interest agreed upon till the end of January 1988 and thereafter did neither refund the deposit amount of Rs. 6,500/- not did he make payment of any interest thereon. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought the refund of the said amount of Rs. 6,500/- with interest thereon. 4.The opposite party filed its statement of objections and averred that on verification of the amounts, the amount claimed by the complainant was found to be excessive. The opposite party, further averred that they had neither refused to make the payment nor the complainant had never approached them demanding the payment. 5.The opposite party on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. 6.During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also got Ex. P.-1 a receipt for the deposit made by him for an amount of Rs. 6,500/- marked in evidence. The opposite party did neither lead any evidence oral or documentary nor did take part in the enquiry before the District Forum, Bangalore. 7.The District Forum, Bangalore, on consideration of material placed on record, held that the complainant has established the gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and deficiency of service. In that view, directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 6,500/- to the complainant with interest thereon. 8. We have called for the records and received. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the pleadings of the parties. 9. The opposite party-the appellant, though did not produce any evidence has in the version filed averred at paras 14, 15 and 16 thus : "14. The Respondent on verification of the available records finds that the claims made by the complainant is beyond the actual figures, hence the scrutiny and evidence would require to be conducted regarding the claims made by the complainant. 15. The Respondent also respectfully submits that if they are due any amount they have never refused to pay the complainant. On the other hand, they have also sent number of circulars and letters requesting the members to settle the matter, one such letter copy is enclosed herewith as Annexure "B". 16. The Respondent submits that in view of the above, when the respondent has not refused ordained payment and is ready to honour his commitment as per order of the Hon''ble Court, the complainant may be advised to contact the respondent and settle the matter. 10. It would clearly go to show that the opposite party has not denied the receipt of the deposit of Rs. 6,500/- from the complainant. The opposite party has further averred that he had not denied the payment to be made to the complainant. 11. Having regard to this plea taken by the opposite party and the affidavit filed by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant has satisfactorily established the fact that the services rendered by the opposite party was deficient in nature. 12. The District Forum, Bangalore, having regard to this material on record, held that the services rendered by the opposite party was deficient in nature and in that view directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500/- with interest thereon to the complainant. 13. Having regard to this material on record, we do not find any ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the District Forum, Bangalore. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the respondent-complainant towards the costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs.