Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Friday, Jul 01, 2005
Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Jul 01, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Money & Banking
-
NBFCs Park Town Benefit fund ordered to refund deposit Our Legal Correspondent
Chennai , June 30 PARK Town Benefit Fund Ltd, Chennai, has been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur, to refund the maturity amount of Rs 80,000, with interest at 18 per cent, from the date of maturity, to a depositor of Sengadu village in Tiruvallur taluk within two months from date of receipt of the order. In its order dated June 10, the forum, comprising Mr P. Perumalappan, President, and Ms K. Tamilselvi, Member II, also ordered payment of cost of Rs 3,000 to the depositor. Complainants Mr Venugopal and Ms V. Sujatha, submitted that they had deposited three fixed deposits with the Kodambakkam and Ambattur branches of the fund in July 1999, and they matured in November 2002 and April 2003. They approached the und to arrange to repay the deposits that had matured. But the fund failed to refund the amounts. They lodged complaints with the consumer forum to obtain the refund from the opposite party (benefit fund). The opposite party rejected the contention of the complainants that it had committed `deficiency of service' and said that the complainants did not come under the definition of `consumers' as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The forum should direct the complainants to approach the regulating authority of nidhi companies appointed by the Department of Company Affairs, which was the highest authority to settle the claims for refund of the deposit monies. Holding that the depositors of monies with nidhis were `consumers' as per the various pronouncements of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, and hence failure by the nidhis to repay the deposits made by the public would amount to `deficiency of service', the forum held that when any deposit matured, the amount of deposit should be paid on the date of maturity as indicated in the deposit receipts. The hard-earned money of the complainants had been deposited with the Fund. There should not have been any delay in refunding the money on maturity. Failure to refund the deposits would have caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainants. The forum said the reason given by the fund that the delay in refund of the deposits was due to the failure of the borrowers of the fund to repay the loans was not sustainable. The fund could not take shelter under this plea. It was the responsibility of the fund to recover the loans from its borrowers. The argument of the fund that the complainants should approach the special officer of the Department of Company Affairs was not acceptable. There were hundreds of depositors who were still unable to get their monies back from the fund. It was for the fund to take up matter with the special officer for repayment of the amounts to the depositors.
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|