BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
R.P.NO.103 OF 2013 AGAINST I.A.NO.364 OF 2013 IN C.C.NO. 27 OF 2013 DISTRICT FORUM RANGA REDDY
Between:
- Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.,
rep. by its Chairman Office, Sahara India Bhavan
No.1 Kappothala Complex, Lucknow - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.,
rep. by its Sector Manager, Office at 1-123-1 & 2
opp. Vijaya Bank, Chandanagar, Hyderabad - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager, Office at Parivar Hotel
Gayathri Nagar, AS Rao Nagar, Malkajigiri, Hyderabad
Petitioners/opposite parties no.1 to 3
A N D
1. P.Saroja Devi W/o Radha Krishna Murthy
aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o 337
MIG, Phase-1, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram
Hyderabad
Respondent/complainant
2. M.Bhavani Prasad
Junior Executive No.18095
M/s Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.,
D.No.4-123-1 & 2, Opp: Vijaya Bank
Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad-050
Respondent/opposite party no.4
3. T.Pavani W/o T.Sudhanidhi
Aged about 37 years, Occ:Business
R/o Flat No.201, Landmark Constructions
Rajeshwar Apartments
Nagarjuna Colony, Street No.7,
Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad
Respondent/Opposite party no.5
Counsel for the Revision Petitioners M/s M.Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondents M/s V.Gourisankara Rao (R1)
M/s Suresh Shiv Sagar (R3)
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 are the revisions petitioners. The revision is filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2013 of the District Forum passed in I.A.No.364 of 2013.
2. The first respondent filed complaint and sought for relief for payment of amount on maturity 4,71,408/- covered under deposit receipts and also she claimed interest and compensation. Her case is that she invested an amount of 3,05,000/- with the petitioners and the petitioners issued Nirman Bonds and after the date of maturity, she surrendered the deposit receipts viz., Nirman Bonds on 12.4.2012. She refused to reinvest the amount with the petitioners and she had received notice dated 7.9.2012 which was issued on behalf of Smt T.Pavani who claimed to have the deposit receipts with her pledged by the first respondent as security for payment of loan a sum of 4,80,000/-.
3. The petitioner had filed petition I.A.No.364 of 2013 seeking permission to implead the respondent no.5 as the opposite party no.5 in the complaint. The petitioner no.1 in her affidavit stated that the respondent no.1 in the complaint referred to the notice issued to her and the petitioners by the respondent no.5 that the respondent no.1 pledged Nirman Bonds with her. The petitioners had stated that the respondent no.5 is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and she has to be impleaded as a party to the complaint.
4. The District Forum dismissed the petition holding that impleading of the respondent no.5 as party to the complaint is not necessary for deciding the dispute.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners preferred revision contending that the first respondent had not submitted original Nirman Bonds to them or did she produce the bonds before the District Forum and that the bonds are in possession of the respondent no.5 who is the mortgagor and her presence is necessary as she is the rival claimant for the amount covered under the Nirman Bonds.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
7. The first respondent has sought for payment of amount on maturity covered under Nirman Bonds issued by the revision petitioners in her favour and the petitioners for one reason or the other failed to pay the amount due in terms of Nirman Bonds to the first respondent and meanwhile the respondent no.5 got issued notice on 3.9.2012 to the petitioners and the first respondent and she requested the petitioners not to pay the amount covered under Nirman Bonds to the respondent no.1 on the premise that the first respondent pledged the bonds with her.
8. The respondent no.5 claimed through her notice that the first respondent borrowed a sum of 4 lakhs pledging 16 Nirman Bonds with her. It appears the amount was lent by the respondent no.5 to the respondent no.1 with an understanding that if the respondent no.1 fails to repay the amount within the stipulated time, the respondent no.5 is at liberty to encash the bonds. Paragraph 3 of the notice reads as under:
My client further informs me that as Mr.Bhavani Prasad was acquainted to my client, the said Bhavani Prasad and Manager Mr.Vasanth Kumar of No.2 of you assured my client that my client can seek for deposit of the said bonds against the payment of money to no.1 of you and that No.1 of you assured that in the event NO.1 of you failed to repay, my client shall be entitled to encash the same at No.2 of you and for the same, No.1 of you have duly signed the concerned papers and undertaking along with receipt. As such, upon execution of the said paper, my client has paid to No.1 of you amounts to the tune of Rs.4,80,000/- in cash and that No.1 of you have duly executed separate receipt to the said effect.
9. The first respondent pleaded in the complaint that the fifth respondent got issued notice to her and the petitioners claiming the amount covered under 16 Nirman Bonds. The petitioners expressed their readiness to pay the amount on maturity in terms of the deposit bonds to the claimant who can prove that she is entitled to the amount. Admittedly, the deposit bonds are in possession of the fifth respondent. The first respondent and the fifth respondent claim the same amount covered under the deposit bonds.
10. The first respondent has claimed the amount as the person who invested the amount and the fifth respondent has claimed the amount as the person to whom the bonds are pledged and as such there has been rival claims for the amount covered under deposit bonds. The District Forum has not considered all the aspects before rejecting the petition. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent no.5 is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and the petition deserves to be allowed.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide rival claims and in this regard he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Chief Executive Officer and Vice-Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Harun Abu and Others” reported in CDJ 1996 SC 966 and the Apex Court considered the power of Consumer Forum to decide rival claims as under:
The jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain and decide complaints necessarily means that where plurality of person claim the same relief, simultaneously disputing each other's right to claim the said relief, the Commission has the necessary power to adjudicate the rival claims and decide the said dispute also. This power flows from an is incidental and ancillary to the substantive power conferred by Section 21 (a) (i) read with Section 22 which applies sub-sections (4) , (5) and (6) of Section 13 to the National Commission as well. It is well-settled that where a substantive power is conferred upon a court or tribunal, all incidental and ancillary powers necessary for an effective exercise of the substantive power have to be inferred. See Khyerbari Tea Company Limited & Another v. State of Assam & others [A.I.R. (1964) S.C. 925 at 935]. The rule as quoted n Craies is "one of the first principles of law with regard to the effect of an enabling act is that a legislature enables something to be done, it gives power at the same time by necessary implication to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purpose in view."
12. The respondent no.5 being in possession of the Nirman Bonds without producing of which the amount thereunder cannot be paid by the petitioners to the deserving claimant, be it the respondent no.1 or the respondent no.5. For the foregoing reasons, this Commission of the considered view that the respondent no.5 being a necessary party to the proceedings has to be impleaded as the opposite party no.5 in the complaint.
13. In the result the, revision petition is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the petition I.A.No.364 of 2013 is allowed. The respondent no.1/complainant is directed to implead the respondent no.5 as the opposite party no.5 in the complaint. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.04.03.2014
కె.ఎం.కె.*
