HANUMANTHU Vs. PITTA RAJ REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.369/2003 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the opposite party has established a firm under the name and style of M/s. J.R.Securities Ltd., in the year 1996 and introduced a fixed deposit scheme. The opposite party is the Promoter-cum-Managing Partner of the said finance firm and attracted by the offer made by the opposite party for investment in fixed deposit, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,22,000/- with the opposite party and the opposite party issued 44 fixed deposit cards for Rs.5000/- each on 17.6.1996 fixing the maturity value as Rs.10,000/- payable on 17.6.2002 for each deposit. The complainant submits that even before expiry of maturity period, the opposite party closed the finance company and when the complainant approached him to refund the fixed deposit amount of Rs.2,22,000/- covered by 44 FDRs with agreed rate of interest, the opposite party failed to pay the same. On 22.5.1999 the opposite party agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- and the complainant handed over 44 original FDR certificates to the opposite party on the same day. The opposite party executed an undertaking on 22.5.1999 promising to pay an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- within a period of three months and if he fails to pay within 3 months he would pay double the agreed amount which comes to Rs.3,06,000/-. The opposite party failed to pay the said amount and hence this complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay of Rs.3,06,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) The opposite party filed counter denying that he is Promoter cum Managing Partner of M/s.J.R.Securities Ltd. and also denied about the investment of Rs.2,22,000/- by the complainant with him under fixed deposit scheme and that he never issued 44 FDR certificates to the complainant. The opposite party submits that the complainant worked as an agent on commission with finance company and the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.