Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011(1) CPR 16
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
D. Appa Rao, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
B.F. Bastawala and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Telegraph Traffic Employees Co. Op.
Credit Society Ltd. and Ors. —Respondents
C.C. No. 57 of 2008
Decided on 1.7.2010

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. K. Paramdhara Chary, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1:Mr. N. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate.
For the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3: Served.

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of consumer forum under Section 3 of C.P. Act is in addition to and not in derogation to any other Act.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g),2(1)(o), 3 and 17—APCS Act, 1964—Section 66—Co-operatives—Fixed deposit—Non-refund of principal amount and interest—Contention of OP that complainants are not consumers and there is no jural relationship is unsustainable—Jurisdiction of consumer forum under Section 3 is in addition to and not in derogation to any other Act—Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint—Complainants are entitled to principal amounts deposited and payment of interest and compensation would be subject to orders of High Court. (Paras 15, 19, 20 to 22)

ORDER

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member— The brief facts as stated in the .complaint are that the complainants deposited certain amounts with opposite party No.1, who has issued the following fixed deposit certificates in the name of the complainants:

S. No. Name FD No. Amount Date

1 2 3 4 5

1. Mr. B.F. Behmanshah 0968 Rs. 1,00,000 2.1.2006

2. Mr. B.F. Behmanshah 969 Rs. 1,00,000 2.1.2006

3. Mr. B.F. Behmanshah 2154 Rs. 1,00,000 5.6.2006

4. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and

Ms. Yasmin Behmanshah 756 Rs. 1,00,000 3.11.2005

5. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and 829 Rs. 1,00,000 3.11.2005

Ms. Yasmin Behmanshah

6. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and

Ms. Yasmin Behmanshah 3657 Rs. 2,30,000 3.11.2005

7. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and

Ms. Yasmin Behmanshah 755 Rs. 1,00,000 3.11.2005

8. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and

Ms. Yasmin Behhmanshah 0957 Rs. 1,00,000 29.12.2005

9. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and 4500 Rs. 4,00,0000 23.12.2005

Ms. Yasmin Behhmanshah

10. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and

Ms. Yasmin Behhmanshah 4527 Rs. 5,35,000 18.1.2008

11. Mrs. Freny Behmanshah and

Ms. Yasmin Bebmanshah 3385 Rs. 66,00 18.1.2008

12. Nawaz Banu A. Hussain 1164 Rs. 50,000 19.5.2007

13. Nawaz Banu A. Hussain 1279 Rs.75,000 2.9.1997

14. Nawaz Banu A. Hussain 1127 Rs. 50,000 21.4.1997

15. Nawaz Banu A. Hussain 2820 Rs. 50,000 2.6.200

16. Nawaz Banu A. Hussain 1279 Rs. 75,000 2.9.1997

17. LuluBehmanshah 3767 Rs. 40,000 3.2.2005

18. Lulu Behmanshah 1135 Rs. 50,000 1.5.1997

19. Lulu Behmanshah 1697 Rs. 25,000 9.7.1998

totalling to Rs.22,86.000 with a maturity period of 6 months each. Opposite party No.1 agreed to pay interest at 13% p.a. on some FDs. and 14% p.a. on some FDs. The complainants submitted that opposite party No.1 issued circulars from time-to-time with respect to change in interest rates and the last agreed interest payable was 14% p.a. The complainants submitted that they invested the amounts in fixed deposits with opposite party No.1 from out of pension benefits and their personal earnings in fond hope that the investments will be of help during the hour of need and rest of the retired life. The complainants further submitted that opposite party No.1 has been very irregular in paying the interest on some of the FDs. and when the complainants requested for refund of the principal amounts after maturity, opposite party No.1 paid interest due on some of the FDs. and assured that the principal amounts will be refunded within a short time. Thereafter the complainants sent several reminders requesting opposite party No.1 for refund of the principal amount and interest but in vain. The complainants submitted that they even reported the matter to the Registrar of Co-op. Society, Divisional Co-op. Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Police of Detective Department and City Crime Stations, Hyderabad for immediate action against opposite party No.1 and advise it to refund the amounts due to the complainants and also sent a reminder on 16.10.2008 but no action was taken by anyone. The complainants submitted that they have requested opposite party No.1 on several occasions stating that they are badly in need of money for the treatment of complainant No.3, who has to undergo a major surgery abroad immediately for removal of brain tumour costing about Rs. 50,00,000.

2. The complainants 1, 2 and 4 are aged more than 75 years and they are dependents on pension and the nominal income from investments made out of pensionary benefits. The complainant No. 3 needs money for surgery and all family members want to contribute some amount towards her treatment. Complainant No.5 is a physically handicapped and solely dependent on the income and if any of these sources were blocked, it would be very difficult to meet their and their family’s day-to-day expenses and other needs. In spite of repeated demands by the complainants, opposite party No.1 neither refunded the principal amounts nor paid the interest accrued thereon and due to this the complainants underwent lot of mental a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011(1) CPR 16ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABADD. Appa Rao, President and Mrs. M. Shreesha, MemberB.F. Bastawala and Ors. —ComplainantsversusTelegraph Traffic Employees Co. Op.Credit Society Ltd. and Ors. —RespondentsC.C. No. 57 of 2008Decided on 1.7.2010

IMPORTANT POINT Jurisdiction of consumer forum under Section 3 of C.P. Act is in addition to and not in derogation to any other Act.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of consumer forum under Section 3 of C.P. Act is in addition to and not in derogation to any other Act.