w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Poompukar Finance & Investments, Rep. by its Managing Partner & Others v/s R. Bagavathiraj

    F.A.NO.348 of 2007 (Against order in C.C.NO.53 of 2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Theni)

    Decided On, 30 July 2010

    At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai

    By, HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT
    By, TMT. VASUGI RAMANAN
    By, M.A.
    By, B.L.
    By, MEMBER I & THIRU S. SAMBANDAM
    By, B.SC.
    By, MEMBER II

    For the Appellants/ Opposite parties: M/s. K.R.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/ Complainant: Mr.R. Achuthan, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.75000/- towards the deposit amount with 24% interest and compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.5.2007 in C.O.P.No.53/2006.)


M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT


1. The opposite parties are the appellants


2. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh, with the1st opposite party financial institution on 17.11.99, under receipts No.311 and 312, for 5 years, wherein the opposite parties have agreed to pay interest @ 24% p.a. At the request of the complainant, on 17.12.2001, they have returned back a sum of Rs.25000/-, leaving the balance of Rs.75000/- with them. The opposite parties have also paid interest upto 17.12.2001. At request of the opposite parties, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1400/- as municipal tax, which is to be deducted from the interest, payable by the opposite parties, since property tax was paid for the property owned by the opposite parties. For the period 9.6.2003 to 9.1.2006, a sum of Rs.41,800/- has to be paid by the opposite parties, as interest. Despite, demand made by the complainant, the opposite parties failed to pay the remaining deposit amount, alongwith stipulated interest, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Issuance of letters also failed to recover the amount, hence, a complaint has been filed, seeking direction against the opposite parties, for the refund of Rs.75000/-, with interest from 17.3.2004, till the date of realization, after deducting the interest already paid, in addition to a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation, for mental agony etc.


3. The opposite parties, admitting the deposit made by the complainant, would contend, that the deposits were made only for one year, and therefore the allegation that the deposits were made for 5 years, is incorrect and if at all, the deposit receipts should have been materially altered. The amount payable towards receipt Nos.311 and 312, were paid and discharged, and as such no amount is due to the complainant and that since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency, they are not liable to pay any amount, much less the amount claimed in the complaint.


4. The District Forum, after assessing the document relied on by the parties, based upon the pleadings also, has reached the conclusion, that the complainant having received the amount under Ex.B1, failed to give credit the same, thereby he committed mistake, that the complainant is entitled to only a sum of Rs.33,200/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/-, with cost. In this view, a direction came to be issued on 30.5.2007, which is under challenge.


5. Heard, the learned counsel for appellant as well as the respondent, perused the written submissions, lower court records and also the order passed by the District Forum.


6. In the memorandum of appeal, though many grounds were raised, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded before us that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.33,200/-, to the complainant, and in this view, that part of the order of the District Forum is sustainable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for appellants, that the complainant having materially altered the Fixed Deposit Receipts, is not entitled to claim interest @9% p.a., as well, he is also not entitled to any compensation, much less Rs.5000/-. A comparison of Ex.A1 and A2, with the counterfoil Ex.B3, make it abundantly clear, that originally the Fixed Deposits were made only for one year. It is not known, under what circumstances, it was corrected as 5 years, as seen from Ex.A1 and A2. In this case, though there is correction, regarding the deposited years, considering the admitted fact, we feel that need not be taken as material alteration, affecting the rights of the parties. By the alleged correction, neither the complainant had derived a benefit, nor the opposite parties were deprived of any rights. Admittedly, interests were paid, even after one year, acknowledged, and therefore question of limitation also will not come as a bar, for the complainant, to claim the amount, which is also fairly conceded by the learned counsel for appellants. Therefore, on the basis of the alternation in Fixed Deposits, regarding the year, we are not going to negative the claim of the complainant, or accept the case of the opposite parties, as if Fixed Deposits were discharged, that too considering the fact, now it is conceded, that there is a balance of Rs.33,200/-, by way of principle amount. The payment of interest, collection interest, or by actual payment, is also admitted. It is also an admitted fact, that from the total deposit of Rs.1 lakh, a sum of Rs.25000/- was paid, leaving the balance of Rs.75000/-, out of which Rs.41,800/- has been deducted, based upon Ex.B1, which is also not under challenge. The only dispute before us, is regarding the quantum of compensation, as well as payment of interest.


7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, since he has not only corrected the year of deposit, from one year to 5 years, but also suppressed the factum of receipt of Rs.43,200/- under Ex.B1. Such a person is not entitled to say, that the opposite parties have committed deficiency, and therefore he is not entitled to claim compensation, which was not properly considere

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d by the District Forum. Hence we are inclined to set aside the order of compensation of Rs.5000/-. As far as other findings of the District Forum viz. the quantum of interest and cost, we find no illegality or any factual error, and in this view, the rate of interest and cost should be confirmed. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.53/2006 dt.30.5.2007, regarding the direction to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation alone, otherwise confirming the order of the District Forum, directing the parties, in this appeal, to bear their respective costs.
O R