BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 30^TH November 2010

PRESENT

                                                         SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT                

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

   SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K         :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.196/2010

(Admitted on 17.7.2010)

Mrs.Rekha Mallya,

Co.Mr.N.P.Mallya,

Aged about 37 years, Hindu,

Main Road,

Puttur.                                              …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Deenanath Shetty)

          VERSUS

1. Authorised Signatory,

    Vijaya Leasing Limited,

    Opp: Bazzar Post Office,

    Main Road, Puttur.

2. Branch manager,

    Vijaya Commercial Credit Limited,

    Centenary Building, 28,

    M.G.Road,

    Bangalore.                                             ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Parties: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he had purchased the cumulative deposit receipt from Opposite Party No.1 of the face value of Rs.16,000/- bearing receipt No.1283697 on 8^th November 1998 and date of maturity whereof is 9-11-1999 and the maturity amount is of Rs.18,400/- and carried rate of interest 14% per annum on 9.6.2000.

The Complainant had given the aforementioned CDR (herein after called as “Cumulative Deposit Receipt”) after the date of its maturity to the Opposite Party No.2 for the purpose of receiving the payment of maturity values.  The Opposite Party No.1 despite of elapse of 11 years of the purchase of the Cumulative Deposit have not made a single paisa of the maturity value of the respective CDR to the Complainant.  Hence, the above complaint  filed the under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay the respective CDRs to the Complainant along with 8% interest per annum and also to compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2.  The acknowledgement placed on the file of this FORA marked as Court Document No.1.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Fora?
2. Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
4. What order?

4.       In support of the complaint, the Complainant – Mrs.Rekha Mallya, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and Ex C1 and C2 are produced as listed in the annexure. The Opposite Parties placed exparte.

We have heard and perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record by the Complainant and answer the points are as follows:

                   Point No.(i) : Negative

Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.      POINT No. (i):

We have noticed that, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties filed Company Petition No.125 and 126/2002 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which is pending for disposal.  We further noticed that, the official liquidator has been appointed in Company Petition No.125 and 126/2002.   We are of the considered opinion that, in view of the appointment of official liquidator in Company Petitions filed by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has to approach before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Company Petition before the official liquidator instead of approaching before this FORA.

In view of the above discussion, we hereby close the complaint with observation that the Complainant has to approach before official liquidator appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Company Petition No.125 and 126/2002 for further action  in accordance with law. Rest of the issues does not arise for consideration.          

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                                       

ORDER

The complaint is closed with observation that the Complainant has to approach before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Company Petition No.125 and 126/2002 for further action in accordance with law.          

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 5 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of November 2010.)

    PRESIDENT                 MEMBER                   MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mrs.Rekha Mallya – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 9.6.2000: Receipt in respect of the CDR bearing No.01283697.

Ex C2 –  Xerox copy of Cumulative deposit CDR No.01283697.

COURT DOCUMENT S:

Doc.No.1: Unserved Postal Acknowledgment.

Doc.No.2: Unserved Postal Acknowledgment.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

-Nil-

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

-Nil-

Dated:30.11.2010                                      PRESIDENT