Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao,
President & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Member
SRI ANDHRA FINANCE —Appellant
versus
PALACHERLA PAPARAO & ORS.—Respondents
F.A. No. 593 of 1996—Decided on 16.6.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. C. Subba Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. M. Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocate.
Depositors of money with a firm inviting deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, are 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - INTERPRETATION - DEPOSITORS OF MONEY WITH A FIRM INVITING DEPOSITS ON PROMISE OF ATTRACTIVE RATES OF INTEREST AND PROMPT REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE EXPIRY OF THE STIPULATED PERIOD WITH FULL SECURITY FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHAPE OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR FIRM, ARE 'CONSUMERS' UNDER THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a partnership firm, received deposits from Venkata Lakshmi, who later died leaving the respondents as her legal heirs. The appellant agreed to pay the deposit amount to the respondents on their furnishing an Indemnity Bond. The respondents delivered the Indemnity Bond to the appellant on 28.9.1994 and the appellant took a draft for Rs. 1,66,714/- in the name of the respondents on the same day. However, the appellant did not hand over the draft to the respondents and instead issued a lawyer's notice dated 18.1.1995, asking them to produce a Succession Certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum held that the respondents were 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the appellant was rendering financial services by inviting deposits from customers and paying interest thereon. The District Forum also found that the appellant had agreed to pay the deposit amount to the respondents on their furnishing an Indemnity Bond, and that the appellant's refusal to hand over the draft to the respondents was an afterthought and a deficiency in service.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the appellant was justified in refusing to hand over the draft to the respondents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The National Commission has held in Neela Vasant Raje v. Amogh Industries and Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd. v. C.S. Menon that depositors of money with a firm inviting deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, are 'consumers' under the Act. 2. The appellant had agreed to pay the deposit amount to the respondents on their furnishing an Indemnity Bond, and the appellant's refusal to hand over the draft to the respondents was an afterthought and a deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. The interest and costs were to be paid as per the directions of the District Forum and the National Commission within 30 days from the date of the order. The District Forum was directed to permit the respondents to withdraw immediately the sum of Rs. 1.66/714/- lying in deposit with it.
Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— The appellant was the opposite party in O.P. No. 71/1995 on the file of East Godavari District Forum at Kakinada. It is a partnership firm. The three respondents were the complainants in that O.P. The first respondent was the husband of Palacheria Rajya Venkata Lakshmi (Venkata Lakshmi) and the second and third respondents (second and third complainants) are their son and daughter respectively.
2. According to the respondents, Venkata Lakshmi deposited in all a sum of Rs. 65,000/- with the appellant firm on various dates in the year 1990. She died on 24.12.1992 leaving the respondents as her only legal heirs. There were some disputes between the partners of the appellant firm and the same were settled and the amount due to the respondents was settled at Rs. 1,66,714/- on 24.9.1994. As per the agreement arrived at between the respondents and the appellant, the appellant should pay the said amount by way of draft in the name of the respondents and the latter should furnish an Indemnity Bond to the appellant. According to the respondents they got an Indemnity Bond prepared and executed the same and delivered it to the appellant firm on 28.9.1994 keeping photo copy of the same with them. The appellant took a draft on the same day for Rs. 1,66,714/- but did not hand over the same after receiving the Indemnity Bond and got issued a lawyer’s notice dated 18.1.1995 (marked as Ex. A-l). The respondents gave a reply to lawyer’s notice dated 22.1.1995 (marked as Ex. A-2). As the deposit amount was not paid the respondents approached the District Forum for a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,66,714/- with interest thereon @24% per annum from 28.9.1994 and costs, damages and compensation for mental agony, submitting that the appellant wrongfully withheld the said amount contrary to the agreement reached between them even though the partners of the appellant knew very well that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased Venkata Lakshmi.
3. The appellant received notice in the O.P. and filed counter. The deposits made by Venkata Lakshmi were admitted. It was also admitted that the appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,66,714/- but to the legal heirs and not to the petitioners. The case of the appellant in the counter was that after the death of Venkata Lakshmi the respondents approached for payment and the appellant was willing to pay the amount to them subject to the production of Succession Certificate to avoid litigation. As there was no response from the respondents, the appellant got issued a notice to them on 18.1.1995 to which the respondents replied on 22.1.1995 with “false allegations”. Thereafter the appellant got issued a rejoinder to the respondents specifically insisting the proof that they were the legal heirs. The appellant also denied that the Indemnity Bond was delivered to it; accordingto it only a photostat copy of the Indemnity Bond was delivered stating that they would deliver it “at the time of giving drafts”. The appellant also contended in the counter that the respondents were not consumers and that the relationship between late Venkata Lakshmi and the appellant was that of debtor and creditor and that therefore the District Forum and no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The appellant did not get any documents marked on its side.
4. The District Forum by its order dated 16.7.1996 allowed the complaint and permitted the respondents to receive the amount of Rs. 1,66,714/- deposited by the appellant in the Forum and directed the appellant to pay interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 28.9.1994 till 14.12.1995 and also Rs. 5,000/- towards general damages for mental agony suffered by the respondents and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs. This order is questioned in the present appeal by the appellant.
5. The District Forum rejected the contention advanced before it on behalf of the appellant that the respondents were not consumers as the relationship b
