MANIPAL SOUBHAGAY NIDHI LTD Vs. SOUMYA K PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions have been filed by Manipal Soubhagaya Nidhi Ltd. which is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which ruled in favour of the Respondents in the various appeals filed before it. There are 54 Respondents in this case. While the amounts deposited, the rate of interest and the maturity value as well as maturity dates vary in respect of these Respondents, since the nature of complaint and the Petitioner is the same in all these cases, it is being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE brief facts according to the Respondents are that they had purchased Soubhagaya Lakshmi Cash Certificates from the Petitioner and as per the Scheme on the date of maturity they were to be paid an enhanced stipulated amount along with interest. However, when the Respondents approached the Petitioner on their respective dates of maturity for the encashment due to them, Petitioner failed to pay them the assured amount and kept postponing the date on which they would be paid on one pretext or the other. THE Respondents, therefore, filed complaints before the District Forum seeking inter alia relief which included payment of the stipulated amount as per their Cash Certificates, compensation for mental agony, stress, cost of litigation as well as interest @ 18% on the Cash Certificate till the date of payment.

(3.) NOTICE was last issued to parties on 19.11.2010 in all these cases and AD cards were received, except for four Respondents whose AD cards came back with the postal remarks absent, not found, or addressee expired. Since most of the Respondents have been served, the cases were listed for final hearing on 17.01.2011. Mr.Saleem Hasan and Mr.Wasim Beg, Advocates represented the Petitioner. Mr.V.N.Raghupathy, Advocate, represented the Respondents in R.Ps No.3906-08/2007 and 3913-3916/07. Mr.B.S.Prasad, Advocate represented the Respondents in R.P. No.3931-3937/07. None was present on behalf of the other Respondents.