State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Omprakash Bhagwan Tammewar, vs Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel, on 27 September, 2011
1 F.A.No.:566/2007
Date of filing :27.06.2007
Date of order :27.09.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :566 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:87 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Omprakash Bhagwan Tammewar,
R/o 4-1-26, 1st floor,
Hanuman Takadi, Nanded. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent )
VERSUS
Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel,
R/o Amar Society, Staltej Road,
Ahmadabad (Gujrat). ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant )
CORAM : Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.Bhushan Kulkarni for appellant , Adv.Shri.S.N.Lavekar for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. Present appeal is filed by Omprakash S/o Bhagwan Tammewar original opponent against the judgment and order dated 12.04.2007 passed by Dist.Forum Nanded in C.C.No.87/2006. Present respondent is the original complainant.
2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under.
That, present respondent was doing business of hotel at Nanded till year 1999, whereas present appellant was having business in the name as "Lotus Pharmaceuticals" at Nanded. That, the appellant was in need of fund for his business and therefore he had accepted the term deposit from the different places to develop the capital for his business. Respondent having good relation with the appellant , he therefore kept term deposit of Rs.50,000/- with the appellant on the interest @ 15% p.a. i.e. 2% extra as prevailing with the bank. Amount of term deposit kept by respondent with 2 F.A.No.:566/2007 the appellant in five instalments each of Rs.10,000/- paid on different dates from 1.4.1997 to 19.4.1997. These term deposits were for the period of 3 years i.e. up to 1.4.2000. That after maturity of the term deposit respondent time and again requested appellant to pay him maturity amount. However on one or other count he denied to pay the same. Finally respondent issued him legal notice dated 31.3.2006. But he did not reply the same. Therefore he approached to the Dist.Forum seeking directions to the appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 15% p.a. alongwith Rs.5000/- for mental harassment.
3. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. He submitted that he did not approach for deposit to the respondent and that respondent himself kept the amount with him as a security. Therefore there was no point of paying any interest. He also denied the period of term deposit of 3 years and further contended that present complaint being barred by limitation, the same be dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-.
4. Dist.Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint. By way of impugned judgment and order Dist.Forum directed present appellant to pay to the respondent total amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.4.1997 till realisation of the entire amount within a period of 30 days.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum,Nanded present appeal is filed in this Commission.
6. Notices were issued to the respondent as well as appellant. Matter was kept for final hearing on 7.9.2011. Adv.Shri.Bhushan Kulkarni appeared for appellant whereas learned counsel Shri.S.N.Lavekar appeared for respondent. We heard both the counsels at length. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that present complaint is time barred as per Section 24A of the C.P. Act. He further submitted that as per respondent`s complaint term deposit was matured in the year 2000. However he filed complaint with Dist.Forum in April 2006 i.e. after a period of 6 years. Therefore complaint not at all maintainable. However the Dist.Forum neglected this legal 3 F.A.No.:566/2007 provision and wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order and the same should be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.Lavekar for respondent submitted that after maturity of term deposit the respondent has time and again demanded the maturity amount with the appellant. However he denied the same. He further submitted that respondent in the mean time had shifted to Gujrat and therefore appellant avoided to pay said amount of the term deposit. He contended that there are receipts of term deposits on record of which period of said deposit is given as 3 years. Learned counsel also referred to the legal notice given by the respondent to the appellant on 21.3.2006, but appellant rejected to accept said notice. He further contended that there being demand from the respondent, there is a continuous cause of action and hence claim is not barred by the limitation. Learned counsel in support of his above said contention relied on the following citations;
i) Padra Taluka Prathmic Shikshkon Ni Cooperative credit Society and Consumer Society Limited -Vs- Mukesh Shah & Anr. reported in II(2008) CPJ 110, Gujrat State Commission, Ahmedabad,
ii) V.P.Davis _Vs- Karuna Trust & Ors. Reported in II(2001) CPJ 138, by Kerala State Commission,
iii) Punjab National Bank -Vs- Sunil Kumar Poddar & Anr.
reported in II(2008) CPJ 325 by Delhi State Commission,
iv) Madhukar Dnyandeo Chothe -Vs- C.U.Marketing Co., reported in IV(2003) CPJ 97, by Maharashtra State Commission,
v) Golden Forests(India) Limited -Vs- Nasib Kaur Chakkal, reported in III(2001) CPJ 339 by Punjab State Commission,
vi) T.A.Abraham -Vs- Manager, Reserved Bank of India, reported in III(2001) CPJ 293 by Kerala State Commission
vii) Devraj -Vs- Srvajan Kalyan Samiti reported in III(2000) CPJ207 by Madhyapradesh State Commission, 4 F.A.No.:566/2007
viii) Rajsthan Housing Board & others -Vs- Bhagya Ram reported II(2004) CPJ 600 by Rajasthan State Commission.
ix) Vivek -Vs- Uco Bank, Indore reported in II(2009) CPJ 373, Madhya Pradesh State Commission.
8. We have perused the record and also considered carefully the oral submissions as put forth by learned counsels for both parties. Appellant has not denied the amount said to have been deposited with him by respondent in the year 1997. He only says that said amount was kept as security and not as deposit. In fact receipts of these deposits are on record and on the said receipts at the bottom it is mentioned that these deposits are for three years. There are 5 receipts each amounting to Rs.10,000/- i.e. total Rs.50,000/-. As per said receipts they were deposited with the respondent firm namely "Lotus Pharmaceuticals" during the period from 1.4.1997 to 25.4.1997. As per terms of the said deposits they were matured as on 1.4.2000. It is contended by appellant that there was no demand of the said term deposit after maturity by the respondent and directly after 6 years he has filed complaint in the Forum and therefore there is no deficiency in service on his part. It is revealed from the affidavit of Shri.Rajendrakumar S/o Bhalchandraji Rathi of Nanded and Shri.Laxmanrao @ Sagar S/o Sambhaji Kshirsagar resident of Nanded that respondent has time to time made demand of maturity amount with the appellant. But the appellant avoided to pay amount of term deposits. It has also come on record that respondent has issued him the legal notice dated 21.3.2006 but the same was also not replied by him. Therefore as contended by learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of citations especially at serial No.1,2,4,7,8 & 9 there is a continuous cause of action and complaint is not barred by limitation as contended by appellant. It is also to be noted that appellant himself has accepted the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was kept with him by the respondent. From the documentary evidence i.e. the receipt of term deposit it is very much clear that this term deposits were kept with the appellant and he was liable to pay him the entire amount after maturity. Therefore by not paying amount of deposit to the respondent, appellant has committed deficiency in service. Dist.Forum has rightly considered all these aspects and rightly passed the judgment and 5 F.A.No.:566/2007 order under appeal. Dist.Forum has also observed since there is no mention about the interest in the receipt of term deposit produced by respondent it has allowed interest of 9% which appears to be quite proper. Hence there being no merit in the appeal, we do not want to interfere with the judgment and order passed by Forum. In the result, we pass the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora Member Presiding Member Mane