Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool

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

   And    

  Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member

Wednesday the 1^st day of October, 2003

C.D.No.95/2002

Sirajunnisa Begum,

W/o B.S.Iqbal Hussain,

R/o D.No.43/252/1A1,

N.R.Peta, Kurnool District.                                         ...Complainant  represented by her                 

   counsel Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna   Prasad, Advocate.

-Vs-

1. S.Raghunath,  S/o S.Muralidhar,

Plot No.29, Michani Somappa Colony, S.A.P. Camp, Kurnool.                        . . . Opposite party No.1 not pressed

2. The Regional Manager,ALPIC Finance Limited,

2^nd Floor, Lakshmi Plaza,Besides Nursing Home,

Maredpalli Estate, Hyderabad.

3. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

M/S ALPIC Finance Limited, Wallace Street,

Fort Mumbai.                 

                                                                                                           …Opposite parties 1 & 2 represented by

                                                                                                                 their counsel Sri.N.A.JaiRaj,Advocate.

ORDER

C.C.No.95/2002

1.       This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking an award on the opposite parties for deposit of Rs.30,000/- towards the secured redeemable non convertable bonds No.000255772 to 000255606 purchased by the complainant in the year 1996 which becomes due by 31^st March, 2001 with stipulation for payment of periodical interest, and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite party for not making payments as stipulated in the said bonds, since March, 2000 and even after  if the maturity inspite of several demands and legal notice dated 05.07.2001 and for the costs of this case.

2.       While the complainant not pressed the case against the opposite paty No.1 the Agent of the opposite parties 2 &3 the opposite party No.2 filed its counter affidavit in defence to the complainant’s case receiving the notice of this forum as to the case of the complainant.  The said counter affidavit of the opposite party No.2 even though admits the purchase of the bonds by complainant as alleged, but denies the status of the consumer to the complainant and the jurisdiction of this Forum as the payment of the amount due under the bonds is governed by the terms and conditions of the prospectus, application form and the bond trust deed entered into between the company and the Bank of Baroda the Bonds trustee for the Bonds as the liability of the opposite parties being contractual one under the above and there by seeks the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.

3.       While the complainant’s side relied upon its sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its case besides to the documentary record marked in Ex.A1 to E.A8.  The opposite parties side neither filed any sworn affidavit nor any documentary record in support and substantiation of the defenses taken in its counter affidavit.

4.       Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficient service conduct of the opposite parties towards their liability under the alleged bonds are there by her entitleness to the reliefs claimed form the opposite parties.

5.       The Ex.A2 office copy of the legal notice dated 05.07.2001 caused to the opposite parties party at the instructions of the complainant not only says the terms and condition governing the said bonds but also of the obligation of its refund by the opposite party in not paying to the compliant the amounts due on those bonds on the date of their repudiation and making demand for its payment.  While the Ex.A2 postal receipt envisages the transmission of the said notice by the Registered post.  The Ex.A3 indicates the acknowledgment to the said notice by the opposite parties.  The office copy of the legal notice dt 15.03.2002 in Ex.A4 caused on the opposite party not only re-iterates the case of the complainant, but also his privy with the opposite party and renews its demand for the payment of the bonds amount as the order of the High Court of Mumbai referred by the opposite parties letter dated 12.03.2003 as to the appointment of provisional Liquidator by the Mumbai High Court is not providing the necessary particulars of the said Liquidator.  The attested copies of Xerox letters dated 08.06.2002 and 25.04.2002 in Ex.A.5 & Ex.A6 respectively also reiterates the claim of the complainant for redeemable amounts under the said bonds from the opposite parties.  The Ex.A7 indicates the transmission of the Ex.A6 reminder by post.  The Ex.A8 is said to be returned legal notice of the complainant sent to the opposite party under courier seeking the particulars of the provisional Liquidator.  None of the above material appears to have been responded by the opposite party and hence they are remaining unrequited establishing the case of the complainant justifying the resort of the complainant to the Forum for re3dressal of her grievances for realization; of the redeemable interest under the said bonds from the opposite parties.

6.       While such is so with the un-rebutted material of the complainant well establishing her claim for the amounts of bonds redeemable on the efflux of time of redemption period, the written version the opposite party filing in the form of the counter affidavit doesn’t deny the issue of the bonds and receiving by it the duly dis-charged bonds form the complainant.  Their main contention; there in is that Bank of Baroda is a Trustee and so the claim should be lodged before the Bank of Baroda.  But the opposite parties neither filed nor dis-closed any such agreement in substation of their contentions and obligating the complainant to prefer the clam before the Bank of Baroda.  Nor any material is placed by the opposite party as to the awareness of the complainant of the said fact as to the privy of the Bank of Baroda in these matters and nor any such material is placed to infer the knowledge of the said matter to the complainant and to infer any concealment or suppression of the matter by the complainant in seeking the redressed before the Forum. The opposite parties neither bothered to furnish the particulars of the Liquidator meant for settling the issues of the Depositors called by the complainant in response to the letter of the opposite party dated 12.02.2003 by avoiding the said notice in Ex.A8 which consequently returned as no such addresses.  These all exhibit the dilatory tactics of the opposite parties in discharging the obligation towards the complainant in reference to those bounds remaining redeemable on efflux of time for redemption and thus exposing the deficient conduct of the opposite parties in service to the complainant in making the necessary payment and thereby making the complianant claim for redemption of the bonds and the amount there in as justifiable.

7.       As the opposite parties by their lassie conduct not paying the due attention to the amounts payable to the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite parties 2&3 jointly and severally to pay the redeemable amounts under the supra stated bounds with interest at 9% for the overdue period from its due date i.e. 31^st March, 2001 along with periodical installment interest due up to 31^st March, 2001 from 30^th March 2000 and Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- as costs of this case.  The opposite parties 2&3, as the case against the opposite party No.1, is dismissed as not pressed, are granted one month time from the receipt of this order for due compliance of the above direction.  In default, the opposite parties 2&3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of the said default till realization of the entire amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the open bench on this the 1^st day of October, 2003.

MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT                            MEMBER

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant:Nill                                     For the opposite parties:Nill

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1          Legal Notice dt05.07.2001 issued by complainants counsel to opposite party No.3

Ex.A2          Postal receipt for sending the legal notice dt 05.07.2001

Ex.A3          Postal Acknowledgement of opposite party NO.3 for receipt of legal notice dt 05.07.2001

Ex.A4          Office copy of letter dt 15.03.2003 (Legal Notice) issued by complainant counsel to the Manger, M/s ALPIC Finance Ltd., secundrabad.

Ex.A5          Attested copy of letter dt 08.06.2002 the ALPLIC Ltd, Secundrabad.

Ex.A6          Attested copy of the letter dt 25.04.2002 addressed by complainant to opposite party No.2.

Ex.A7          Postal receipt dt 26.04.2002 sending letter dt 25.04.2002

Ex.A8          Courier receipt and returned cover from opposite party No.3

MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT                            MEMBER

//Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10)

of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties    :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :