State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shree Ganga Finance Pvt. Ltd vs Sangeeta Malhotra on 24 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.889 of 2007
Date of institution : 25.06.2007
Date of decision : 24.01.2012
1. Shree Ganga Finance Pvt. Ltd. Near BMC Chowk, G.T. Road,
Jalandhar through its Managing Director.
2. Sh.Girish Mehta, Managing Director Shree Ganga Finance Pvt.Ltd.,
97-R, Model Town Jalandhar.
...Appellants
Versus
Sangeeta Malhotra w/o Sh.Narinder Malhotra, r/o 122, Sehdev Market,
Jalandhar.
....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
9.5.2007 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Puneet Jindal, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh.Amit Dhawan, Advocate. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This order will dispose of the following six first appeals because the facts and the point of law involved are identical and these are directed against the similar orders dated 9.5.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
1. First Appeal No.889 of 2007 Shri Ganga Finance Pvt.Ltd.& anr.
Vs.Sangeeta Malhotra
2. First Appeal No.890 of 2007 Shri Ganga Finance Pvt.Ltd.&anr.Vs.Rohit Jain
3. First Appeal No.891 of 2007 Shri Ganga Finance Pvt.Ltd.&anr.Vs.Rahul Jain
4. First Appeal No.892 of 2007 Shri Ganga Finance Pvt.Ltd.&anr.Vs.Saroj Bala Jain First Appeal No.889 of 2007 2
5. First Appeal No.893 of 2007 Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd. Vs.Rohit Jain.
6. First Appeal No.895 of 2007 Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Smt.Saroj Bala Jain.
The facts have been taken from the First Appeal No.889 of 2007 and the parties have been referred to as their status in this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under Companies Act 1956 and is in engaged in the business of finance and had been accepting deposits from the general public to invest in their business. The respondent made deposit with the appellant company in FDR No.2222 on 2.8.1992 for 25 months bearing interest at the rate of 16 % per annum. This FDR was again renewed on 3.9.1999 and fresh FDR No.3746 having face value of Rs.53,252/- was issued with permissible interest at the rate of 13% per annum compounded annually with effect from 3.9.1999 for 36 months. Similarly the respondent made another deposit of Rs.13,000/- on 31.8.1992 against the FDR No.2230 for 36 months bearing interest at the rate of 15% per annum compounded with effect from 31.8.1992.
3. It was pleaded by the respondent that she repeatedly approached the appellants to pay the proceeds of these FDRs but the appellants had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Whenever the respondent approached the appellants for payment of maturity value, the respondent was told that the FDRs have been renewed and would bear interest at the contractual rates mentioned therein. It was further pleaded that the respondent was entitled to the recovery of the amount mentioned below along with updated interest at agreed rates mentioned in the FDRs:-
Sr.No. FDR No. Amount due Rate of interest with due date
1. 3746 Rs.53,252/- 13% p.a.compounded w.e.f. 3.9.1999
2. 2230 Rs.13,000/- 15% p.a. compounded w.e.f.31.8.1992
4. It was also pleaded that a legal notice dated 19.8.2004 was issued calling upon the appellants to pay the maturity amount of these FDRs First Appeal No.889 of 2007 3 along with updated interest. Despite service of legal notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, the appellants had failed and neglected to pay the amount due and payable to the respondent. The appellants sent a frivolous reply dated 3.9.2004 but no payment had been made to the respondent, which tantamount to the deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. It was also pleaded that the appellants had no authority to transfer the amount due against FDR No.2230 to any other account or to adjust the same in the share account of Sh.P.P.Bansal, Sh.Rahul Jain and Smt.Saroj Bala Jain on the instructions of the Mrs.Pamawati, who was the joint holder of FDR No.2230 along with respondent.
5. Hence the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellants to pay the proceeds of the FDRs along with upto date interest at the agreed rate of interest as per the FDRs.
6. Upon notice, the appellants filed written statement in which it was denied if the appellants had failed or neglected to pay the lawful amount payable to the respondent. It was, however, admitted that FDR No.3746 was issued and on its maturity, no instructions were received from the respondent. As such the proceeds of the same were transferred to the personal account of the respondent and now a sum of Rs.67,237/- stood in the personal account of the respondent. It was pleaded that the appellants are not liable to pay the interest after the amount was credited to the personal account in the absence of any instructions from the respondent.
7. In respect of FDR No.2230, it was stated that the same matured on 23.11.1995 and, since the respondent did not give any instructions for renewal of the same, the maturity amount of Rs.18,458/- was transferred to the personal account of the respondent. Lateron as per the instructions of Mrs. Padmawati, this amount was adjusted in the share account of P.P.Bansal, Rahul Jain and Saroj Bala. It was also pleaded that the legal notice issued by the respondent was duly replied and the appellants were First Appeal No.889 of 2007 4 ready to pay the lawful amount to the respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
9. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay the original amount with agreed rate of interest upto the date of maturity and thereafter pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the maturity value from the date of maturity till its payment.
10. Hence the appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appeal be accepted, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and thoroughly perused the record.
13. During the pendency of appeal before this Commission, the appellants expressed its willingness to pay at least maturity amount to the respondent, and therefore, agreed that amount of Rs.25,000/-deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of appeal be transferred to the respondent and the same was transferred by this Commission. This Commission also directed the appellants to submit the final statement of account in respect of respondent depicting, amount due on the maturity of these FDRs and further directed the appellants to make the payment of balance amount to the respondent. The appellants submitted the statement of account in respect of FDR No.3746, in which the maturity amount was stated as Rs.76,837/- and after adjusting Rs.25,000/- paid to the respondent by this Commission further paid Rs.42,237/- through DD No.781983 and the balance amount of Rs.9600/- was paid vide cheque No.774975 dated 6.11.2007. As such nothing was outstanding out of the maturity amount in FDR No.3746. However, in respect of FDR No.2230, it was stated that this FDR was in fact in the joint name of Smt.Padmawati First Appeal No.889 of 2007 5 and the respondent. Smt.Padmawati is the first name in the FDR, as such as per the instructions, the said amount cannot be released to the respondent and instead it is to be paid to the first depositor. This Commission directed the respondent to get instructions supported with affidavit to whom the amount of FDR is required to be paid and in view of this demand draft prepared by the appellants in respect of this FDR was returned to the learned counsel for the appellants.
14. It is observed that there is specific provision mentioned in front as well as on the back of the FDRs (Ex.C3/C4) that rate of interest will cease from the date of maturity unless renewed by the depositor. But the appellant neither returned the maturity amounts to the respondent nor issued any notice to the respondent to seek any further instructions. Instead, the appellants cleverly remained silent and kept the maturity amount with them and deprived the respondent of the interest, which otherwise would have been allowed to the respondent in case the FDRs were renewed. It is evident that the maturity amount, which should have been returned to the respondent, remained with the appellants and appellants earned profits on it during the subsequent years.
15. However as per the guidelines / directions of the Reserve Bank of India, it was the obligation of the appellant to intimate the details of the maturity amount of the deposit to the depositors. The relevant provisions of instructions No.8A,10 & 11 of Manual of Non Banking Financial Companies issued by Reserve Bank of India is reproduced as under:-
"8A Intimation of maturity of deposits to depositors:- It shall be the obligation of the non-banking financial company to intimate the details of maturity of the deposit to the depositor at least two months before the date of maturity of the deposit. (10)Payment of interest on overdue public deposits:- A non-
banking financial company may, at its discretion, allow interest on an overdue public deposit or a portion of the said overdue deposit from the date of maturity of the deposit subject to the conditions that:-
First Appeal No.889 of 2007 6
(i) the total amount of overdue deposit or the part thereof is renewed in accordance with other relevant provisions of these directions, from the date of its maturity till some future date, and
(ii) the interest allowed shall be at the appropriate rate operative on the date of maturity of such overdue deposit which shall be payable only on the amount of deposit so renewed:
Provided that where a NBFC fails to repay the deposit along with interest on maturity on the claim made by the depositor, the NBFC shall be liable to pay interest from the date of claim till the date of repayment at the rate as applicable to the deposit. (11) Joint deposit:- Where so desired, deposits may be accepted in joint names with or without any of the clauses, namely, " Either or Survivor", "Number One or Survivor/s", "Anyone or Survivor/s".
16. It is evident that the appellants have failed to repay the deposit along with interest on maturity even after the issuance of legal notice. Therefore, as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the appellants were liable to pay to the respondent the deposit along with interest from the date of claim till the date of repayment at the rate as applicable to the deposits. It is also evident that the appellants had also failed to intimate the respondent after maturity of FDRs. Thus the appellants have violated the guidelines No.8A and 10 of Reserve Bank of India.
17. As regards, the transfer of the proceeds of the FDR No.2230 on the instructions of Smt.Padmawati to the share account of Sh.P.P.Bansal, Sh.Rahul Jain and Smt.Saroj Bala is concerned, it is noted that as per the FDR receipt No.2230 (Ex.C2) Smt.Padmawati and the respondent were the joint depositors of the amount of the FDR. It is also noted that the deposit was accepted in the joint names without any of clauses namely "either or surviver" "No.1 or surviver/s" "anyone or surviver/s". Therefore, it was essential to obtain the consent of the respondent before transfer of these proceeds to any other account. The appellants have also not produced even the consent of Smt.Padmawati for transferring the First Appeal No.889 of 2007 7 proceeds to the share accounts of P.P. Bansal, Rahul Jain and Saroj Bala. The contention of the appellant that Smt.Padmawati being first name in FDR, was entitled to the proceeds of the FDR is not correct. In the absence of any of above clauses, both the respondent and Smt.Padmawati are eligible, in equal proportions, to get the proceeds of the FDR.
18. In view of above discussion and the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the appellants are liable to pay the maturity amount of these FDRs to the respondent along with the settled rate of interest i.e. 13% and 15% per annum compounded annually in FDR No.3746 and FDR No.2230 respectively from the date of filing claim i.e. 19.8.2004 (date of legal notice to the appellant). However, the respondent was allowed only 6% rate of interest by the District Forum. The respondent has not challenged this order of the District Forum. Therefore, the order of the District Forum qua the 6% rate of interest allowed to her from the maturity date onwards has become final. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed and upheld.
19. Since the maturity amount has been paid only the interest on the maturity amount in respect of FDR No.13746 is left to be paid to the respondent beyond the date of maturity. However, in respect of FDR No.2230, respondent is to be paid 50% of maturity amount as well as 50% of the interest beyond the date of maturity to date of realisation. F.A.No.890 of 2007
20. The appellants have filed statement of account in respect of maturity amount of FDRs No.3757, 3758, 3760 and 3180, which adds upto Rs.1,27,543/-. This Commission has already remitted Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of appeal to the respondent. The appellants have further paid an amount of Rs.90,213/- vide DD No.781985 and Rs.12,330/- vide cheque No.774977. The First Appeal No.889 of 2007 8 respondent was given liberty to check accuracy of the statement of account submitted by the appellants and she has not challenged the same. Thus the maturity amount has been paid by the appellant to the respondent.
21. In view of the findings in First Appeal No.889 of 2007, the respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the maturity amount as directed by the learned District Forum from the date of maturity till the date of realisation. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is upheld.
F.A.No.891 of 2007
22. The appellants have filed statement of account in respect of maturity amount of FDRs No.3761, 3759, 3383, 2997, 3756, 3382, 2836, 3394, 2932 and 1490, which adds upto Rs.2,46,736/-. This Commission has already remitted Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of appeal to the respondent. The appellants have further paid an amount of Rs.2,18,346/- vide DD No.781984 and Rs.7576/- vide cheque No.781986. The respondent was given liberty to check accuracy of the statement of account submitted by the appellants and he has not challenged the same. Thus the maturity amount has been paid by the appellant to the respondent.
23. In view of the findings recorded in First Appeal No.889 of 2007, the respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of maturity till the date of realisation. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed and order of the District Forum is upheld. As per the statement of account, the respondent has been paid Rs.4186/- in excess of the maturity amount. This amount be adjusted against interest payable to the respondent. F.A.No.892 of 2007
24. The appellants have filed statement of account in respect of maturity amount of FDRs No.3738 and 3739, which adds upto Rs.96,134/- This Commission has already transferred Rs.25,000/- deposited by the First Appeal No.889 of 2007 9 appellants at the time of filing of appeal to the respondent. The appellants have further paid an amount of Rs.59,140/- vide DD No.781988 and Rs.11,994/- vide cheque No.774974. The respondent was given liberty to check accuracy of the statement of account submitted by the appellants and she has not challenged the same. Thus the maturity amount has been paid by the appellants to the respondent.
25. In view of the findings recorded in First Appeal No.889 of 2007, the respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of maturity till the date of realisation. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is upheld.
F.A.No.893 of 2007
26. The appellants have filed statement of account in respect of maturity amount of FDR No.968, which adds upto Rs.43,817/-. This Commission has already transferred Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of appeal to the respondent. The appellants have further paid an amount of Rs.18,817/- vide DD No.179201. The respondent was given liberty to check accuracy of the statement of account submitted by the appellants and he has not challenged the same. Thus the maturity amount has been paid by the appellant to the respondent.
27. In view of the findings recorded in First Appeal No.889 of 2007, the respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of maturity till the date of realisation. It has, however, been pleaded by the appellants that the appellant company has gone into voluntary liquidation vide special resolution dated 30.9.2004 and as such the company has been debarred from accepting further deposits or to pay interest thereon since 27.5.2000. Therefore, payment of interest is restricted upto 27.5.2000. The appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the order of the learned District Forum is modified to that extent.
First Appeal No.889 of 2007 10F.A.No.895 of 2007
28. The appellants have filed statement of account in respect of maturity amount of FDRs No.1438, 1507, 1508, 1506, 1161, 1504 and 1505 which adds upto Rs.2,61,018/-. This Commission has already transferred Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of appeal to the respondent. The appellants have further paid an amount of Rs.1,99,162/- vide DD No.515786 and Rs.36,856/- vide DD No.179552. The respondent was given liberty to check accuracy of the statement of account submitted by the appellants and she has not challenged the same. Thus the maturity amount has been paid by the appellant to the respondent. In view of the findings recorded in First Appeal No.889 of 2007, the respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of maturity till the date of realisation.
29. It has been pleaded by the appellants that the appellant company has gone into voluntary liquidation vide special resolution dated 30.9.2004 and as such the company has been debarred from accepting further deposits or to pay interest thereon since 27.5.2000. Therefore, payment of interest is restricted upto 27.5.2000. The appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the order of the learned District Forum is modified to that extent.
30. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.1.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member January 24, 2012.
Davinder