M.GANGARUDRAIAH vs MANJOG ASSOCIATES

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,70,850/- with interest thereon from the opposite party.

IT is the case of the complainant that he invested a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with the opposite party. The opposite party agreed to pay on the said sum 24% interest per annum. The opposite party paid some interest over the said amount for the period between 1984-87 and subsequently it issued fresh certificates making the principle amount at Rs. 90,852/- and promised to repay the same with the same rate of interest. But failed to pay any interest or refunded the said principle amount of the complainant. Nextly it is the case of the complainant that on 6.2.1991 the opposite party collected the original certificates of the year 1989 and fraudulently took signature on an agreement dated 6.2.1991 misrepresenting to the complainant. The opposite party thereafter did neither make payment towards principle nor interest to the complainant even though the complainant demanded to make payment of the same. So the complainant filed the complaint seeking payment of a sum of Rs. 1,90,850/- with interest thereon.

The opposite party filed its version. It denied all the averments contained in the complaint and sought the complaint to be dismissed.

DURING enquiry the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. The Power of Attorney Holder of the opposite party filed his affidavit in evidence and also produced the copies of the agreement dated 6.2.1991. We heard the complainant and the learned Counsel of the opposite party, perused the pleadings and the material on record.

THE complainant at Paras 4 and 5 of the complaint has averred thus : "4. However, since July, 1989, i.e. date of the fresh certificates, the opposite party has failed to repay a single paisa towards interest or principle. THEreafter the opposite party has misrepresented the facts to the complainant and collected the originals of the said certificates of the year 1989 and taken signature fraudulently from the complainant on an agreement dated 6.2.1991. Even the complainant as per the said agreement was not kept up by the opposite party. 5. THE complainant submits that since the said agreement dated 6.2.1991 was taken by fraud and mis-representation, the complainant is not bound by the same. THE complainant has got issued a legal notice dated 8.5.1992 calling upon the opposite party to make payment of Rs. 90,852/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 1989 till up-to-date. While the opposite party has received the notice, he has failed to give any reply."

The complainant in his affidavit filed on 29.3.1993 at paras 4 and 5 averred thus : "4.1 submit that I have invested a sum of Rs. 70,000/- at the first instance with the opposite party and the opposite party had promised me to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Thereafter the opposite party had paid some interest for the period 1984-87 and subsequently issued fresh certificates making the principle amount Rs. 90,852/- and promised me to repay the same with the same rate of interest. However, since July, 1989 which is the date of the fresh certificates the opposite party has failed to repay either a single paise towards interest or principle. Thereafter the opposite party has misrepresented the facts to me and collected the originals of the said certificates of the year 1989 and taken my signature fraudulently on an agreement dated 6.2.1991.

I submit that since the said agreement dated 6.2.191 was taken by fraud and misrepresentation I am not bound by the same. In fact, I have got issued a legal notice dated 8.5.1992 calling upon the opposite party to make payment of Rs. 90,852/- with interest @ 24% per annum. The opp. party has been served but has failed to give any reply."

In another affidavit filed by the complainant on 26.3.1996 at para 2 has averred thus : "I say, during February, 1991,1 was called at the office of the opposite party and when I went there, one lady by name Jamuna posed herself as the Personal Secretary of the respondent. Mrs. Jamuna informed me that respondents are ready to settle the claim and hence I should get the original documents. So I took the original deposit receipts and went to their office on 6.2.1991. The aforesaid Jamuna took the originals from me and informed me that she will return the same after keeping it in their office for calculating interest. After taking the documents, she told me to sign an agreement and if I do not sign the same, I will not get any money. Hence I was coerced and misguided to sign the agreement against my wish and Will. Thereafter, even to this day, my originals are not returned to me.

Thus the allegations of the complainant show deficiency in service due to coersion, fraud and misrepresentation.

THE allegations of deficiency in service it is clear from the averments referred above, is only incidental to fraud and misrepresentation. Determination of fraud and misrepresentation will not be undertaken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

THE National Commission while considering such an aspect of the matter in Devashish Mitra v. THE Managing Director, Lakshmi Varsha Company and Another, reported in I (1992) CPJ 30 (NC) held as under : "Again the appellant has charged the respondent with the commission of fraud, deception and cheating. Deficiency in service in a particular case may be incidental to j deception, fraud and cheating, but the appellant/complainant has to seek redress for such offences and consequent for the damage done to him under the appropriate law in the appropriate law Courts. Determination of deception, fraud and cheating will not ordinarily be undertaken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and this must be determined before we can reach the consequential issue of alleged deficiency in service, if any."

Having regard to the principle as laid down by the National Commission, the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we hold that the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Redressal Forum and so we hold that the complaint of the complainant is untenable.

In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed.

THE parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.