BEFO0RE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No. 271/2006 Filed on 09/10/2006

Dated: 16..11..2009

Complainants:

1. Consumer Protection Centre of Kerala, Reg.No.T.853/1994, Bhadradeepam, Kallampally, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011. Represented by its General Secetary. Shri. P.K. Divakaran residing at ....do.. ..do....

    

2. D. Anuja Rani @ D.A. Rani, Bhadradeepam, Kallampally, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011. Presently working at India Technology Centre 5^th Floor, Orion Buildings, Plot No.17, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081. Represented by her power of Attorney Shri. P.K. Divakaran, Bhadradeepam, Kallampally, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. LIC Mutual Fund represented by Executive Trustee, LIC Mutual Fund, Industrial Assurance Building, 4^th Floor, Mumbai – 400 020.

2. LIC Mutual Fund, Dhanalakshmy (1) PCS House Plot No.4, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 072.

3. The Area Manager (Investment) Jeevan Bhima Sahayog, Asset Management Company Limited, 38 Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.

(By Advs. S.S. Kalkura, G.S. Kalkura)

4. The Central Bank of India, Trivandrum Branch, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Branch Manager.

(By Adv. N. Mohanakumaran Nair)

 

This O.P having been heard on 30..06..2009, the Forum on 16..11..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to filing of this complaint are that on 27/11/1991 the 2^nd complainant made investment of Rs. 10,000/- with opposite parties 1 to 3 through 4^th opposite party under the Dhanalakshmi (1) Scheme introduced by opposite parties 1 to 3 and 2^nd complainant was allotted 1000 units, that the dividend declared at the end of every accounting year would get automatically reinvested in the Scheme and additional units would be allotted against the same, that dividend units issued to the 2^nd complainant as of 31/3/1996 was 657.117 units and that as on 31/3/96 2^nd complainant was allotted 1657.117 units. It is submitted by the 2^nd complainant that opposite parties 1 to 3 in gross violation of the Clause 12 of the said Scheme, terminated the Scheme on 01/02/97 which resulted in financial loss to the 2^nd complainant.

2. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version mainly contending that the complaint is barred by the principles of resjudicata, jurisdiction and limitation, that opposite parties 1 to 3 are not having an office at Thiruvananthapuram, that the registered offices of the opposite parties 1 to 3 are at Bombay, that complainants plead jurisdiction on the ground that the application for Mutual Fund Scheme along with the money for the same was submitted through the 4^th opposite party Bank at Thiruvananthapuram, that the 4^th opposite party Bank is only one of the collecting banks for the scheme and the said Bank has nothing to do with LIC Mutual Fund, that 4^th opposite party Bank has no authority for executing any agreement on behalf of LIC Mutual Fund, that complainants have invented such a situation only to plead territorial jurisdiction and only to defeat the findings of the Hon'ble Kerala State commission in this regard. 4^th opposite party filed version contending that 4^th opposite party has not executed any agreement with the share holders for and on behalf of the 1^st opposite party, that 4^th opposite party has been impleaded intentionally to file this complaint before this Forum to invoke its territorial jurisdiction and complainants have never raised any allegation against 4^th opposite party and that complaint itself is barred by limitation.

3. Along with the complaint, complainant has filed a delay condonation petition also for which opposite parties have filed their objection. Since opposite parties have raised the maintainability of the complaint mainly on the ground of lack of territorial jursidiction, we raise the preliminary issue as:

1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

4. It is the say of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the express findings of the Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal No.931/2000. Complainant has produced the said Order. On a perusal of the Order in Appeal 931/2000, it is seen that the said appeal was preferred by opposite parties 1 to 3 in this complaint against the order in O.P. No.137/99 of this Forum. The said O.P 137/99, was filed by the 1^st complainant in this complaint without figuring 2^nd complainant (unit holder) as complainant and 4^th opposite party as opposite party. Appeal No.931/2000 was allowed by the State Commission observing, that this Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and on that ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed, that no substance in the contention of the complaint that opposite parties 1 to 3 unilaterally changed the accounting year to the disadvantage of the unit holders, that there is no provision in the Scheme for payment of interest on the proceeds to the unit holder on termination of the Scheme and that complaint filed is not entertainable also on the ground that unit holders were not figured as complainants. It is further to be pointed out that against the Order in Appeal 913/2000 the 1^st complainant had preferred a Revision Petition No.1712 of 2005 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The Order in the said Revision Petition is reproduced as under:

"We do not think that without complainant, the petitioner organization could file the complaint nor do we think that there is any room for taking any view different from the view taken by the State commission. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings along with complainant taking advantage of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute, 1995 (1), 369, (NS) in so far as the limitation is concerned.

With these observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed".

In effect, the said Revision Petition stands dismissed, and the Order of the State commission in Appeal 931/2000 stands confirmed. The present complaint is seen filed by the former complainant in O.P.No.137/99 as the 1^st complainant along with unit holder as the second complainant against the former opposite parties in O.P. 137/99 as opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4^th opposite party the Central Bank. The facts of the case in O.P. 137/99 and this complaint are one and the same. The main contentions argued in the version in the former case and this case are one and the same. It is pertinent to point out that O.P.No.137/99 was dismissed vide Order in Appeal 931/2000 not only on holding that the unit holder (2^nd complainant in this case) was not figured as complainant but also on holding that this Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further held that on the ground of territorial jurisdiction alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further to be pointed out that the facts of the case was also discussed in detail by the State Commission and found that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. Since the issue in regard to the jursidiction of this Forum has already been answered by the State Commission vide Order in appeal 931/2000 and the Hon'ble National Commission has not taken any view different from the State Commission, we cannot take any view different from the view taken by the State commission in regard to jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint. In view of the above we need not discuss the delay petition in filing this complaint.

Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable since we lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Complainants are at liberty to seek redress from appropriate authority.

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

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

BEFO0RE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No. 271/2006 Filed on 09/10/2006

Dated: 16..11..2009

Complainants:

1. Consumer Protection Centre of Kerala, Reg.No.T.853/1994, Bhadradeepam, Kallampally, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011. Represented by its General Secetary. Shri. P.K. Divakaran residing at ....do.. ..do....

    

2. D. Anuja Rani @ D.A. Rani, Bhadradeepam, Kallampally, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011. Presently working at India Technology Centre 5^th Floor, Orion Buildings, Plot No.17, Madhapur, Hyderabad – 500 081. Represented by her power of Attorney Shri. P.K. Divakaran, Bhadradeepam, Kallampally, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. LIC Mutual Fund represented by Executive Trustee, LIC Mutual Fund, Industrial Assurance Building, 4^th Floor, Mumbai – 400 020.

2. LIC Mutual Fund, Dhanalakshmy (1) PCS House Plot No.4, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 072.

3. The Area Manager (Investment) Jeevan Bhima Sahayog, Asset Management Company Limited, 38 Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.

(By Advs. S.S. Kalkura, G.S. Kalkura)

4. The Central Bank of India, Trivandrum Branch, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Branch Manager.

(By Adv. N. Mohanakumaran Nair)

 

This O.P having been heard on 30..06..2009, the Forum on 16..11..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to filing of this complaint are that on 27/11/1991 the 2^nd complainant made investment of Rs. 10,000/- with opposite parties 1 to 3 through 4^th opposite party under the Dhanalakshmi (1) Scheme introduced by opposite parties 1 to 3 and 2^nd complainant was allotted 1000 units, that the dividend declared at the end of every accounting year would get automatically reinvested in the Scheme and additional units would be allotted against the same, that dividend units issued to the 2^nd complainant as of 31/3/1996 was 657.117 units and that as on 31/3/96 2^nd complainant was allotted 1657.117 units. It is submitted by the 2^nd complainant that opposite parties 1 to 3 in gross violation of the Clause 12 of the said Scheme, terminated the Scheme on 01/02/97 which resulted in financial loss to the 2^nd complainant.

2. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version mainly contending that the complaint is barred by the principles of resjudicata, jurisdiction and limitation, that opposite parties 1 to 3 are not having an office at Thiruvananthapuram, that the registered offices of the opposite parties 1 to 3 are at Bombay, that complainants plead jurisdiction on the ground that the application for Mutual Fund Scheme along with the money for the same was submitted through the 4^th opposite party Bank at Thiruvananthapuram, that the 4^th opposite party Bank is only one of the collecting banks for the scheme and the said Bank has nothing to do with LIC Mutual Fund, that 4^th opposite party Bank has no authority for executing any agreement on behalf of LIC Mutual Fund, that complainants have invented such a situation only to plead territorial jurisdiction and only to defeat the findings of the Hon'ble Kerala State commission in this regard. 4^th opposite party filed version contending that 4^th opposite party has not executed any agreement with the share holders for and on behalf of the 1^st opposite party, that 4^th opposite party has been impleaded intentionally to file this complaint before this Forum to invoke its territorial jurisdiction and complainants have never raised any allegation against 4^th opposite party and that complaint itself is barred by limitation.

3. Along with the complaint, complainant has filed a delay condonation petition also for which opposite parties have filed their objection. Since opposite parties have raised the maintainability of the complaint mainly on the ground of lack of territorial jursidiction, we raise the preliminary issue as:

1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

4. It is the say of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the express findings of the Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal No.931/2000. Complainant has produced the said Order. On a perusal of the Order in Appeal 931/2000, it is seen that the said appeal was preferred by opposite parties 1 to 3 in this complaint against the order in O.P. No.137/99 of this Forum. The said O.P 137/99, was filed by the 1^st complainant in this complaint without figuring 2^nd complainant (unit holder) as complainant and 4^th opposite party as opposite party. Appeal No.931/2000 was allowed by the State Commission observing, that this Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and on that ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed, that no substance in the contention of the complaint that opposite parties 1 to 3 unilaterally changed the accounting year to the disadvantage of the unit holders, that there is no provision in the Scheme for payment of interest on the proceeds to the unit holder on termination of the Scheme and that complaint filed is not entertainable also on the ground that unit holders were not figured as complainants. It is further to be pointed out that against the Order in Appeal 913/2000 the 1^st complainant had preferred a Revision Petition No.1712 of 2005 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The Order in the said Revision Petition is reproduced as under:

"We do not think that without complainant, the petitioner organization could file the complaint nor do we think that there is any room for taking any view different from the view taken by the State commission. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings along with complainant taking advantage of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute, 1995 (1), 369, (NS) in so far as the limitation is concerned.

With these observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed".

In effect, the said Revision Petition stands dismissed, and the Order of the State commission in Appeal 931/2000 stands confirmed. The present complaint is seen filed by the former complainant in O.P.No.137/99 as the 1^st complainant along with unit holder as the second complainant against the former opposite parties in O.P. 137/99 as opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4^th opposite party the Central Bank. The facts of the case in O.P. 137/99 and this complaint are one and the same. The main contentions argued in the version in the former case and this case are one and the same. It is pertinent to point out that O.P.No.137/99 was dismissed vide Order in Appeal 931/2000 not only on holding that the unit holder (2^nd complainant in this case) was not figured as complainant but also on holding that this Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further held that on the ground of territorial jurisdiction alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further to be pointed out that the facts of the case was also discussed in detail by the State Commission and found that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. Since the issue in regard to the jursidiction of this Forum has already been answered by the State Commission vide Order in appeal 931/2000 and the Hon'ble National Commission has not taken any view different from the State Commission, we cannot take any view different from the view taken by the State commission in regard to jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint. In view of the above we need not discuss the delay petition in filing this complaint.

Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable since we lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Complainants are at liberty to seek redress from appropriate authority.

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

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER