MOHAN LAL vs AAR KAY TRADER

THE complainant''s case in brief is that the opposite party was running a Finance Company and approached the complainant for making deposits with them in order to earn interest for himself. THE complainant believed the opposite party and deposited the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) with the respondents who were running a Company styled as "Aar Kay Trader" i.e., the opposite party No. 1 for a period of 36 months and the opposite party agreed to return the said amount along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. THE amount deposited by the complainant was to fetch monthly yield in the shape of interest and received interest from the opposite party till October 2000. THE complainant thereafter came to know that the opposite party has closed their office and opposed the opposite party for the return of the amount along with stipulated interest but with no results necessitating the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission for a direction to the opposite party to refund to him the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum with effect from 1st of October, 2000 and also sought compensation.

THE registered notice was despatched for the service of the opposite party but the notice could not be served upon the opposite party as allegedly they had gone underground and ultimately on being satisfied that the opposite party cannot be served in person, notice to them was published in a local English daily by this Commission vide order dated 25th February, 2002 but despite the publication of the notice none of the opposite party caused appearance to file the version of their case. In the meanwhile it was brought to the notice of this Commission that the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were confined in Central Jail and a fresh notice was also sent to the Central Jail for service upon the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 but as none appeared for the opposite party despite all this exercise of service of notice, the opposite party was set ex parte by this Commission vide order dated 26.8.2002.

The complainant was asked to lead ex parte evidence and the complainant filed his own affidavit and photo copy of the receipt of deposit of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) dated 1.10.2000 bearing Number 002440.

EX parte arguments for the learned Counsel of the complainant have been heard. We have gone through the file thoroughly and carefully. In his affidavit the complainant has reiterated the averments made by him in the complaint by deposing that he had deposited Ten lakh rupees with the opposite party who were running a Finance Company under the name and style as "M/s. Aar Kay Trader" and others on 1.10.2000 vide Receipt No. 002440 with an assurance from the opposite party that they would return the said amount along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum with monthly yield of interest and complainant was paid monthly yield in the shape of monthly interest up to October 2000 but thereafter the opposite party closed the office and failed to pay interest and return the amount deposited by the complainant. The deposition made by the complainant in his affidavit is supported by the documentary evidence which is in the shape of photo copy of deposit receipt Number 002440 dated 1.10.2000.

FROM the ex parte evidence so tendered by the complainant we are satisfied that the complainant has proved his case and is entitled to the refund of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum which is the prevailing rate of interest given by the Banks with effect from 1st of November, 2000 till its realisation. Accordingly the opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 9 per cent with effect from 1st November, 2000 till its realisation within a period of six weeks. Complaint disposed of.