BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member

Friday the 22^nd day of September, 2006

C.C.No.90/2006

Smt.G.Nagasheshamma, Age 61 years, W/o. G.Srinivasa Guptha,

H.No.11-7, Upstairs, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool-518002.                    

…Complainant

          -Vs-

1. Managing Director,  Morphen Laboratories Ltd,

    Flat No.812,814, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Marg, New Delhi-110001

2. T.S.Rao

    H.No.62/145/A, Chidambar Rao Street, Fort, Kurnool.                                  

          …Opposite parties

          This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared by in person and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.

O R D E R

 (As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad Hon’ble President)

1. This case of the complainants is filed under section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act alleging the deficiency of service of the opposite party in not paying the mature amount of certificate bearing No.DL2Dx 37384 dated 05.04.2002 issued by opposite party No1 to its  agent opposite party No.2, receiving Rs.25,000/- for a deposit  period of 36 months for mature amount of Rs.35,128/-, and hence seeking direction on the opposite parties for payment of maturity amount with 24% interest from date of maturity till realization along with Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
2. In pursuance to  the notice of  this forum as to this case of complainant while the opposite party No.1 informs through its letter dated 01.07.2006 that the company law board has ordered reschedule for the payment of fixed deposit in a duration of 4 years enclosing there to the copy of the company law board award with first schedule installment of Rs.3,750/- vide a cheque bearing No.465806 dated 10.07.2006 which was delivered to this complainant  on 08.08.2006, the opposite party No.2 contested the case filing an evassive written version alleging himself as a near broker in furnishing the forms to the needed free of charge and for being used to their discussions without lending any advises to them.  It disowns of any of the status of opposite party No.2 as agent to the opposite party No.1, alleging itself as agent to Bajaj an agent of opposite party No.1 and there by denying any of its liability to the complainant’s claim.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while complainants side as relied upon the documentary record Ex.A1 to A5 and its Sworn Affidavit and the replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite parties has merely relied upon its pleadings.
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought against the opposite parties .

5.       The Ex.A1- is the attested xerox of Deposit Receipt No.DL2DX37384 envisaging its issual on receipt of an investment of Rs.25,000/- from complainant for a period of 36 months at 11.5% interest  for a maturity amount of Rs.35,128/- payable to the complainants or her nominee by 30.03.2005 by opposite party No.1 company .

1.      The Ex.A2 is the xerox of covering letter dt 07.03.2005 envisaging the submission of original deposit receipt of Ex.A1 to the opposite party No.1 and the Ex.A3 is the postal receipt for the transmission of deposit receipt referred above, under a registered post. 
2.      The Ex.A4 is the office copy of a reminder letter dated: 30.04.2005 caused to the opposite party No.1 renewing its request for payment of maturity amount, as the Ex A2 was not responded by the opposite party No.1. The Ex.A5 envisages the transmission of Ex.A4, under a certificate of posting.
3.      As the letter dated 01.07.2006 send by the opposite party No.1 was not denying the claim of the complainant nor its privy with the complainant under said deposit receipt and the opposite party No.2 statement by its evasive written version not specifically denys the privy of the complainant under said deposit receipt, the material Ex.A1 to A5 remains proved by the complainant to the effect what they contain.
4.      The stand taken by the opposite party No.1, vide the material he has sent into this case proceedings, is that the Hon’ble company law board vide its order dated:19.08.2003 has fixed repayments dates for the fixed deposit of Rs.2001 to  Rs. 50,000 in a period of four years commences by the first payment at the end of first  year from the date of maturity 15%, at the end of second year 20%, at the end of third year 25%, and the residuary balance of 40% at the end of 4^th year of maturity and so in compliance of the same a  cheque dated 10.07.2006 for Rs.3,750/- (i.e., 15% of 25,000) is sent and consequently it was delivered to the complainant at his request.                   
5. Hence the further point remaining for consideration is as to the effect of said company law board order on the claim of the complainant:?
6. The decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Prakash Wadhwa Vs Classical Global Securities Limited, reported in (IV) 2003-CPJ page 37(NC) holds the complainant’s not participated in the proceedings before company law board are entitled to file complaint before the Fora and the order dismissing execution sought on non compliance of order is legally erroneous.
7. Neither any material is placed by the opposite party nor any participation of this complainant appears in the said company law board order by deciding the question there in.  Hence the said order of company law board stands in any manner hurdling this case proceedings initiated by the complainant.
8. The   company law board order provides  the opposite party No.1 company to raise Rs.5lakhs to 9 lakhs per month,  limiting to an amount Rs.1 crore in a span of one year, to meet the hardship cases like oldage,  senior citizen, medical, marriage etc.
9. The complainant in the present case is said to be of 61 years old.  It is further stated in the Sworn Affidavit of the complainant, for the first time the opposite party No.1 has informed as to the company law board order in answer to the notice of this forum as to this case of complainant, keeping silent all through to the letters and reminders of the complainant.  This fact is not disputed, by the opposite party from the circumstances appearing in the record. If the opposite party No.1 is having any bonafidees and sincerity in its conduct into spirit and sense of the said Company Law Board Order it would not have hesitated in keeping informed of the said Company Law Board Order dt 19.08.2003 to the complainant in response the submission of Ex.A1 for the refund of mature amount Vide Ex.A2 and A3 and reminders of the request for the same vide Ex.A4 and A5 and it would have sent the maturity amount taking into consideration the age of the  complainant meeting the same from the amount  of Rs.9lakhs earmarked for hardship cases instead of nearly sending a cheque of Rs.3,750/- that to for 15% of principal amount of deposit and keeping itself away from the proceedings of this  case in this forum. 
10. Hence, in any way there being any bonafidees in the conduct of the opposite party No.1 towards its obligation of paying mature amount of deposit receipt and that conduct as amount into its deficiencies of service in releasing of mature amount to deposit holder, as a financial institution inviting deposits for payment with interest on maturity the opposite party No.1 remaining liable to may good of the claim of the complainant.
11. In the absence of any material showing the opposite party No2 as agent of the opposite party No1 in its business of processing and the investments inviting depositors, the liability the opposite party No2 remains hardly to the claim of the complainant and hence the case against opposite party No2 is dismissed.
12. As a liability of the opposite party No.1 and its deficiencies of services towards  the complainant in payment of the mature amount is made out and the said lapsive conduct on the part of the opposite party No.1 in not responding properly to the complainant as caused mental agony besides driving the complainant for its remedy to this forum the opposite party No.1 is not only to pay to the complainant the maturity amount – the payment of Rs.3,750/- made under a cheque mentioned in supra paras during pendenti lite of the case along with contracted rate of interest till realization but also an amount of Rs.2000/- as costs and  Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony.    

1. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1

for compliance of the supra stated award within a month the receipt of this order. 

        Dictation to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 22^nd of September, 2006.

          MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT         

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Complainant: Nil                                               For the Opposite Party: Nil

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1 Attested xerox copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) dt 05.04.2002 to

          30.03.2005.

Ex.A2 Xerox copy of letter, dt 07.03.2005.

Ex.A3 Postal Receipt (RLD 130).

Ex.A4 Office copy of Reminder letter, dt 30-04-2005 of complainant to Opposite

          Party No.1

Ex.A5 Certificate of posting (Ex.A4).

List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-  Nil

          MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1.Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan Advocate, Kurnool.

2.  Managing Director, Morphen Laboratories Ltd, Flat No.812,814

     Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Marg, New Delhi-110001

3.  T.S.Rao, H.No:62/145/A, Chidambar Rao Street,    Fort, Kurnool.                           

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties: