IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
1. C.C.14/12 (Filed on 06.01.2012)
2. C.C.15/12 (Filed on 06.01.2012)
3. C.C.16/12 (Filed on 06.01.2012)
4. C.C.17/12 (Filed on 06.01.2012)
5. C.C.26/12 (Filed on 01.02.2012)
6. C.C.48/12 (Filed on 08.03.2012)
7. C.C.49/12 (Filed on 12.03.2012)
8. C.C.50/12 (Filed on 13.03.2012)
9. C.C.53/12 (Filed on 15.03.2012)
10. C.C.69/12 (Filed on 22.03.2012)
11. C.C.70/12 (Filed on 22.03.2012)
12. C.C.90/12 (Filed on 25.04.2012)
13. C.C.102/12(Filed on 19.05.2012)
14. C.C.133/12(Filed on 27.07.2012)
1. C.C. No. 14/2012:
Between:
1. Lizyamma Thomas,
Purathayil House, Kozhimala,
Vallamkulam (via),
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pin – 689 541.
2. Thomaskutty. P.C., of do. do.
(By Adv. Jacob Thomas) … Complainants.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
2. C.C. No. 15/2012:
Between
1. Lizyamma Thomas,
Purathayil House, Kozhimala,
Vallamkulam (via),
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pin – 689 541.
2. Thomaskutty. P.C., of do. do.
(By Adv. Jacob Thomas) … Complainants.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 6000017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
3. C.C. No. 16/2012:
Between:
1. Lizyamma Thomas,
Purathayil House, Kozhimala,
Vallamkulam (via),
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pin – 689 541.
2. Thomaskutty. P.C., of do. do. … Complainants.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
4. C.C. No. 17/2012:
Between:
Thomaskutty P.C,
Purathayil House, Kozhimala,
Vallamkulam (via),
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pin – 689 541.
(By Adv. Jacob Thomas) … Complainant.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
5. C.C. No. 26/2012:
Between:
Sam. P. John,
Parayathukattil House,
Thiruvalla P.O.,
Thiruvalla Taluk. .... Complainant.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017. …. Opposite parties
6. C.C. No. 48/2012:
Between:
1. Thomas. C.I., Cheruthodathi-
Hill View, Kozhencherry East P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
2. Leelamma Thomas, of do.do.
3. Abraham Thomas, of do. do.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla) … Complainants.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCLR-10,
2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
7. C.C. No. 49/2012:
Between:
1. Abraham Thomas,
Manaloor Thenalil House,
Keezhukara, Kozhencherry P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
2. Elizabeth Abraham, of do. do.
3. Dr. Deepak. T. Abraham, of do. do. … Complainants.
(By Adv. Sabu Thomas)
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
8. C.C. No. 50/2012:
Between:
1. Leelamma Thomas,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
2. Thomas. C.I., of do. do.
3. Abraham Thomas, of do. do.
4. Joseph Thomas, of do. do.
5. Suni Abraham, of do. do. … Complainants.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
9. C.C. No. 53/2012:
Between:
1. Leelamma Thomas,
Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
2. Thomas. C.I., of do. do.
3. Abraham Thomas, of do. do.
4. Joseph Thomas, of do. do.
5. Suni Abraham, of do. do. … Complainants.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
10.C.C. No. 69/2012:
1. Joseph Thomas, Cheruthodathil Hillview,
Kozhencherry East P.O.,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
3. Leelamma Thomas, of do. do.
4. Abraham Thomas, of do. do.
5. Suni Abraham, of do. do.
6. Thomas C.I., of do. .do. … Complainants.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
11.C.C. No. 70/2012:
Between:
Thomas Varghese,
Valliparampil Mary Land,
Thekkemala P.O.,
Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. … Complainant.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
12.C.C. No. 90/2012:
Between:
1. Aniyankunju P.M.,
Pulayakunnil House,
Eraviperoor P.O.,
Thiruvalla Taluk.
2. Smt. Jessy Aniyan, of do. do. … Complainants.
And:
George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Regd. Office, Vairams 112,
Thyagaraya Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai – 600017.
(Present Address: Integrated-
Finance Company Ltd., IFCL,
R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600017). … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
13. C.C. No. 102/2012:
Between:
John V.J.,
Velamthundiyil House,
Pullad P.O., Thiruvalla,
Pathanamthitta
(By Adv. Anzil Zachariah) … Complainant.
And:
1. Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Kumbanad Branch, Thiruvalla,
Represented by it Manager.
2. The Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Vairams, 112, Thyagaraya Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai represented by
Its Director. … Opposite parties.
14.C.C. No. 133/2012:
1. K.O. Philip,
Mount Sharon Villa,
Chepra P.O., Malavila,
Ummannoor Village,
Kottarakara Taluk.
2. Reena Philip, of do. do. … Complainants.
(By Adv. Thomas Roy Muttathil)
And:
1. Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.,
R-10, Prem Nagar Colony,
South Boag Road,
Chennai – 600 017.
2. Mr. George Kuruvilla,
Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.,
No.10, North Crescent Road,
Chennai – 600 017.
3. The Branch Manager,
Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.,
Kozhencherry P.O.,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
COMMON ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainants have filed this complaints against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. All the above 14 cases were filed by different complainants alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The material issues involved in the above cases are one and the same and the opposite parties are also same in all cases. So for the sake of convenience, all these cases are heard together and disposed by this common order.
3. The complainants’ case is that the main opposite party is the Integrated Finance Co. Ltd., and the other opposite parties are its officials and the complainants are secured redeemable non convertible discount bond holders of the company. The complainants’ purchased the said bonds of the company on the basis of the advertisement regarding the same published by the said company. As per the terms and conditions of the said bonds, the bond holders are entitled to get the paid amount along with assured interest on its redemption/maturity. The redemption period and the rate of interest assured are different in each bond. After the redemption/maturity, the complainants’/bond holders of the opposite parties approached the opposite parties for getting their deposited amount and its assured interest. But opposite parties evaded to payment by saying one or other reasons. The non-payment of the amounts entitled to the complainants’ by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants and the opposite parties are liable to the complainants for the same. Some of the complainants also issued notices to the opposite parties but they have not taken any positive response. Hence this complaints for the realization of the amounts entitled to the complainants from the opposite parties along with compensation and cost.
4. In all cases opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version in each cases. The contentions raised by the opposite parties in their versions are similar. According to the opposite parties, the above complaints are not maintainable for 3 reasons. The 1st reason is that the complainants are not consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant has not hired any service for consideration from the opposite parties. The 2nd reason is that all the complaints are barred by limitation as all the complaints are filed after the expiry of 2 years from the date of maturity of the bond on which date the cause of action accrued to the complainants. The 3rd ground is that the Company Law Board, Chennai had already issued said directions for resolving the dispute between the company and the bond holders as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and hence the complainants are not entitled to approach this Forum. Further, the matter in issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the complainants remedies are barred as the complainants are bound by the said proceedings and the final outcome there of and hence the complainants have no cause of action against the opposite parties at present. It is further contended that the allegations of the complainants are false. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaints with their cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaints are maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
The evidence of these cases mainly consists of the proof affidavits of the complainants and the opposite parties and the documents marked from either side. After closure of evidence, opposite parties filed argument note and both sides were heard.
6. Point No.1:- Opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the complaint on three grounds. The 1st ground is that the complainants have not availed any service from the opposite party by giving any consideration. The 2nd ground is that the complaints are barred by limitation and the 3rd ground is that since alternate remedy for settling all the grievances of the complainants has already been given by other statutory bodies like Company Law Board and also the said matter is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the complainants have no locus standi to approach this Forum now.
7. Being the bond holders of the opposite parties, the complainants are consumers/customers of the opposite parties. The allegations of the complainants is that the amounts entitled to the complainants from the opposite parties are not returned by the opposite parties and the amounts demanded by the complainants are the amounts entrusted/deposited by the complainants with the opposite parties for getting the benefits offered by the opposite parties for the deposited money. The non-payment of the principal amount and its accrued benefits offered by the opposite parties will be a deficiency of service if it is proved by the complainants. So the contention that the complainants are not consumers of the opposite parties is not sustainable. Further, the complainants entrusted the money with the opposite parties as trustees of the complainants and such the said entrustment is to a trust. So there is no question of limitation and hence the said contention is also not sustainable.
8. Since there is no verdict from any Apex Forums restraining this Forum from entertaining these complaints and since Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy for redressing the grievances of consumers, the contention of the opposite parties in this respect is also not sustainable. Therefore, we find that these complaints are maintainable before this Forum.
9. Point Nos. 2 & 3: All the complainants in these cases have the same grievances against the opposite parties. According to the complainants, they are bond holders of the opposite parties. They have taken the bonds of the opposite parties on the assurance of the opposite parties that they will return the bond amount and its interest at the time of redemption of the bonds. But opposite parties failed to return the amount entitled to the complainants as against their assurance and in spite of the repeated demands of the complainants for the same. The non-return of the amount entitled by the complainants as per the bonds taken by the complainants is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties which caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainants. Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence the complainants prays for allowing the complaints.
10. In order to prove the case of the complainants, all complainants filed separate proof affidavits along with documents in their respective complaints. On the basis of the proof affidavits, some of the complainants were examined and the documents produced by them were marked. In the remaining cases, documents produced were marked on the basis of the proof affidavits filed by the complainants therein. The complaint-wise evidence of the complainants is as follows:
1. C.C. 14/2012: In this case, second complainant filed a proof affidavit for and on behalf of him and for and on behalf of his wife the first complainant along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit of the second complainant, he was examined as PW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is the attested copy of the bond certificate No. 15621 dated 5.12.2002 issued by the opposite parties showing the issuance of 554 bonds of ` 1,000 each for a total amount of ` 5,54,000 in the name of the complainants’ redeemable on 04.12.2009.
2. C.C. No. 15/2012: In this case, the second complainant filed a proof affidavit for and on behalf of him and for and on behalf of his wife, the first complainant along with one document and on the basis of the proof affidavit, the said document was marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is the bond certificate No. 15620 dated 05.12.2002 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants showing the issuance of 554 bonds of ` 1,000 each for a total amount of ` 5,54,000 redeemable on 04.12.2009.
3. C.C. No. 16/2012: In this case, the second complainant filed a proof affidavit for and on behalf of him and for and on behalf of his wife, the first complainant along with one document and on the basis of the proof affidavit, the said document was marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is the bond certificate No. 20964 dated 10.11.2003 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants showing the issuance of 134 bonds of ` 1,000 each for a total amount of ` 1,34,000 redeemable on 09.11.2010.
4. C.C. No.17/2012: In this case, the complainant filed proof affidavit along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is the copy of the Fixed Deposit receipt No. 182033 dated 30.04.2002 for ` 1,00,000 at the rate of 12% interest per annum for a period of 5 years issued in the name of the complainant by the opposite parties.
5. C.C. No. 26/2012: In this case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the copy of bond certificate No. 31429 dated 14.06.2004 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant showing the issuance of 173 bonds of ` 1,000 each for a total amount of ` 1,73,000 at the rate of 10.5% interest per annum, redeemable on 13.06.2009. Ext. A2 is the copy of acknowledgment for the receipt of the original certificate issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the copy of temporary cash receipt dated 08.06.2004 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the news item published in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 10.04.2012 showing the arrest and remand of the Managing Director of the second opposite party.
6. C.C. No. 48/2012: In this case, the second complainant filed a proof affidavit for and on behalf of herself and for and on behalf of her husband, first complainant and her son, 3rd complainant along with 13 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the said documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A13. Exts. A1 to A12 are the bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants showing the bond amount of ` 17,29,000, redeemable from 07.05.2008 to 26.10.2011. Ext. A13 is the copy of letter dated 12.06.2009 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the first complainant stating their inability for paying back the bond amount.
7. C.C. No. 49/2012: In this case, the first complainant filed proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of the second and third complainants along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the said documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Exts. A1 and A2 are the 2 bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants for a total amount of ` 1,36,000, redeemable on 29.05.2008 and 01.02.2006. Ext. A3 is the letter dated 03.03.2006 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the second complainant stating their inability to return the bond amounts.
8. C.C. No. 50/2012: In this case, the first complainant filed a proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of the complainants 2, 3 and 4 along with 17 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A17. Exts. A1 to A17 are the bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants for a total amount of ` 19,32,000 redeemable from 07.05.2008 to 26.10.2011.
9. C.C. No. 53/2012: In this case, first complainant filed a proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of complainants 2 to 5 along with 14 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A14. Exts. A1 to A14 are the bond certificates for ` 12,84,000 redeemable from 07.05.2008 to 24.08.2011.
10. C.C. No. 69/2012: In this case, second complainant filed a proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of the complainants 1, 3, 4 and 5 along with 13 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A13. Exts. A1 to A13 are the bond certificates for ` 10,55,000 redeemable from 18.02.2010 to 26.10.2011.
11. C.C. No. 70/2012: In this case, complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the acknowledgment dated 20.07.2005 issued by the opposite parties for receiving the original bond certificate from the complainant. Exts. A2 and A3 are the letters of opposite parties in the name of the complainant stating their inability for the repayment of the bond amount. Ext. A4 is the copy of the bond certificate for ` 50,000 issued in the name of the complainant redeemable on 20.07.2005.
12. C.C. No. 90/2012: In this case, first complainant filed a proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of the second complainant along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1, A1(a), A1(b) and A2. Exts. A1, A1(a) and A1(b) are the copies of bond certificates issued in the name of the complainants for a total amount of ` 3,81,000 redeemable on 03.05.2006. Ext. A2 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite parties on accepting the legal notice issued by the complainants.
13. C.C. No. 102/2012: In this case, complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the authorization executed by the complainant’s wife in favour of the complainant. Exts. A2 and A3 are the bond certificates issued in the name of the complainants for ` 7,00,000 redeemable on 24.08.2007 and 24.08.2009. Ext. A4 is the legal notice dated 09.11.2011 issued by the complainants to the opposite parties.
14. C.C. No. 133/2012: In this case, first complainant filed a proof affidavit for himself and for and on behalf of the second complainant along with 12 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A12. Exts. A1 to A6 are the copies of the bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants for an amount of ` 12,02,000 redeemable on 2/2006. Exts. A7 to A10 are the copies of the notices sent by the complainants to the opposite parties. Exts. A11 and A12 are the acknowledgment cards of legal notices issued by the complainants. On the basis of the above evidence, the complainants argued for allowing their complaints.
11. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Company Law Board had approved the decision of the share holders and approved a scheme of arrangement between the company and bond holders for settling the dispute between the parties and hence the complainants are legally bound to accept the Directions and orders of the said authorities. They also contended that they have already filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras as the decision of the Hon’ble Single Bench quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, for getting an order in their favour for resolving the dispute between the parties and hence the complainants has to wait for the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. With the above contentions, opposite parties argued for the dismissal of the complaints as these complaints are premature and the complainants had no cause of action against the opposite parties at present.
12. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, Power of Attorney Holder of the opposite parties’ company filed proof affidavit in all cases along with 7 documents. The contentions in the proof affidavit filed in all cases are one and the same and the 7 documents submitted along with proof affidavit in all cases are also one and the same. On the basis of the proof affidavits, the 7 documents filed by the opposite parties were marked as Exts. B1 to B7 in all cases. Ext. B1 is the photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005 and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Exts. B2 to B4 are the copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in various Appeals against the orders of certain District Forums in respect of the dispute between certain depositors and the opposite parties herein. Ext. B5 is the copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the opposite parties. Ext. B6 is the copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition filed by the opposite parties. Ext. B7 is the copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company Law Board, Chennai in connection with the dispute between certain debenture holders and the opposite parties.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the transactions. The only question to be considered is whether these complaints can be allowed or not? According to the complainants, their deposited amounts and its accrued interest were not returned by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the said amounts. But according to the opposite parties, these complaints are not allowable as the matter in dispute is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and hence these complaints are not allowable.
14. On a perusal of the evidence adduced by the complainants, it is seen that the complainants have paid money to the opposite parties as per the bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties had no case that they have not received any amount from any complainants. It is further seen that the opposite parties has not returned any amount to the complainants either the principal amount or the interest accrued thereon as there is no evidence from the part of the opposite parties showing that they have returned the amounts entitled to the complainants.
15. The main objection raised by the opposite parties in allowing these complaints is the pendency of the Special Leave Petition filed by them before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is pertinent to note that though the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed an order in favour of opposite parties on the basis of the decision of the shareholders’ meeting and on the basis of the order of Company Law Board, the Hon’ble Division Bench quashed the said order of the Single Bench. Therefore, at the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench is in force and it is in fact against the opposite parties upholding the right of the depositors. However, opposite parties contended that they have filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Division Bench. But they failed to adduce any evidence to show that the pendency of the said Special Leave Petition is a bar to this Forum in allowing these complaints. This fact is also confirmed by the Hon’ble Kerala State CDRC in numerous cases. Further, C.P. Act is an additional remedy for the consumers. So we find no reason to accept the contentions of the opposite parties. Therefore, we find that these complaints are allowable as the opposite parties are not entitled to retain the investments of the complainants without any valid reasons.
16. In the result, these complaints are allowed; thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts entitled to each complainant which is as follows:
(1) In C.C. No. 14/2012, complainants are entitled to get ` 5,54,000 (Rupees Five lakhs fifty four thousand only) as per Ext. A1 bond certificate and its interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 05.12.2002 till this date and a cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(2) In C.C. No. 15/2012, complainants are entitled to get ` 5,54,000 (Rupees Five lakhs fifty four thousand only) as per Ext. A1 bond certificate along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 05.12.2002 till this date and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(3) In C.C. No. 16/2012, complainants are entitled to get ` 1,34,000 (Rupees One lakh thirty four thousand only) as per Ext. A1 bond certificate along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 10.11.2003 till this date and cost of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only).
(4) In C.C. No. 17/2012, the complainant is entitled to get ` 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) as per Ext. A1 deposit receipt with interest at the rate of 12% interest per annum from 30.04.2002 till this date and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only).
(5) In C.C. No. 26/2012, the complainant is entitled to get ` 1,73,000 (Rupees One lakh seventy three thousand only) as per Ext. A1 bond certificate along with interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum from 14.06.2004 till this date and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only).
(6) In C.C. No. 48/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 17,29,000 (Rupees Seventeen lakhs twenty nine thousand only) as per Exts. A1 to A12 bond certificates along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum payment for each bond certificate from the date of issue to this day and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(7) In C.C. 49/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 1,36,000 (Rupees One lakh thirty six thousand only) as per Exts. A1 and A2 bond certificates with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment for each bond certificate till this date and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only).
(8) In C.C. 50/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 19,32,000 (Rupees Nineteen lakhs thirty two thousand only) as per Exts. A1 to A17 bond certificates along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of payment for each bond certificate till this date and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(9) In C.C. No. 53/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 10,54,000 (Rupees Ten lakhs fifty four thousand only) as per Exts. A1 to A14 bond certificates along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of payment for each bond certificate till this date and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(10) In C.C. No. 69/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 10,55,000 (Rupees Ten lakhs fifty five thousand only) as per Exts. A1 to A13 bond certificates along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of payment for each bond certificate till this date and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(11) In C.C. No. 70/2012, the complainant is entitled to get ` 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as per Ext. A4 bond certificate along with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from 21.07.2004 till this date and cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only).
(12) In C.C. No. 90/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 3,81,000 (Rupees Three lakhs eighty one thousand only) as per Exts. A1, A1(a) and A1(b) bond certificates along with 8.5% interest per annum from 04.05.2005 till this date and cost of ` 2,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
(13) In C.C. No. 102/2012, the complainant is entitled to get ` 7,00,000 (Rupees Seven lakhs only) as Exts. A2 and A3 bond certificates along with 9.07% interest per annum for Ext. A2 bond certificate and 9.5% interest per annum for Ext. A3 bond certificate from 25.08.2004 till this date and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.
(14) In C.C. No. 133/2012, the complainants are entitled to get ` 12,02,000 (Rupees Twelve lakhs and two thousand only) as per Exts. A1 to A6 bond certificates along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 02.02.2001 till this date and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only).
Since interest is allowed, no orders for separate compensation in these complaints. Opposite parties are directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 11% per annum will be entitled to each complainants for the amounts allowed to them from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(president)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
1. C.C. No. 14/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : Thomaskutty. P.C
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Attested copy of bond certificate No. 15621 dated
6.12.2002 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainants.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No.
160/2005 and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410
of 2005 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4: Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India for issuing notice in the Special
Leave Petition filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
2. C.C. No. 15/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Attested copy of bond certificate No. 15620 dated
5.12.2002 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainants.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave
Petition filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
3. C.C. No. 16/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Attested copy of bond certificate No. 20964 dated
10.11.2003 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
4. C.C. No. 17/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : P.C. Thomas kutty
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Copy of the Fixed Deposit receipt No. 182033 dated
30.04.2002 for ` 1 lakh issued by the opposite parties to
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
5. C.C. No. 26/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sam P. John
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Bond certificate No. 31429 dated 14.06.2004 issued by
the opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Acknowledgment issued by the opposite parties in the
name of the complainant.
A3 : Temporary receipt dated 08.06.2004 issued by the
opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
A4 : News item published in the Malayala Manorama Daily
dated 10.04.2012.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
6. C.C. No. 48/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 to A12 : Bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the
name of the complainants.
A13 : Copy of letter dated 12.06.2009 issued by the opposite
parties in the name of the first complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
7. C.C. No. 49/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 and A2 : Bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the
name of the complainants for a total amount of `
1,36,000.
A3 : Letter dated 03.03.2006 issued by the opposite parties
in the name of the second complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
8. C.C. No. 50/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 to A17 : Bond certificates issued by the opposite parties in the
name of the complainants for a total amount of `
19,32,000.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
9. C.C. No. 53/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 to A14 : Bond certificates for ` 12,84,000 issued by the
opposite parties to the complainants.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
10. C.C. No. 69/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 to A13 : Bond certificates for ` 10,55,000 issued by the opposite
parties in the name of the complainants.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
11. C.C. No. 70/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Acknowledgment dated 20.07.2005 issued by the
opposite parties.
A2 : Letter dated 05.09.2005 issued by the opposite parties in
the name of the complainant.
A3 : Letter dated 17.02.2011 issued by the opposite parties in
the name of the complainant.
A4 : Copy of the bond certificate dated 21.07.2004 for `
50,000 issued in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
12. C.C. No. 90/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1, A1(a) & A1(b) : Copies of bond certificates for ` 3,81,000 issued
by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. A2: Acknowledgment card signed by the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
13. C.C. No. 102/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Authorization executed by the complainant’s wife in
favour of the complainant.
A2 & A3 : Bond certificates issued in the name of the complainants
for ` 7,00,000.
A4 : Legal notice dated 09.11.2011 issued by the
complainants to the opposite parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
14. C.C. No. 133/2012:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 to A6 : Copies of the bond certificates issued by the opposite
parties in the name of the complainants for an amount
of ` 12,02,000.
A7 to A10 : Copies of legal notices sent by the complainants to the
opposite parties.
A11 & A12 : Acknowledgment cards of legal notices issued by the
complainants.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order in Company Petition No. 160/2005
and Company Application No. 1409 and 1410 of 2005 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
B2 to B4 : Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble CDRC in
various Appeals against the orders of certain District
Forums.
B5 : Copy of the Power of Attorney executed by the opposite
parties in favour of the Power of Attorney holder of the
opposite parties.
B6 : Copy of the order dated 16.05.2008 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India for issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition
filed by the opposite parties.
B7 : Copy of the order dated 15.11.2006 issued by the Company
Law Board, Chennai.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Lizyamma Thomas, Purathayil House, Kozhimala,
Vallamkulam (via), Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pin – 689 541.
(2) George Kuruvilla, Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
IFCL, R-10, 2nd Floor, South Boag Road,
Prem Nagar, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017.
(3) Sam. P. John, Parayathukattil House,
Thiruvalla P.O., Thiruvalla Taluk.
(4) Thomas. C.I., Cheruthodathi Hill View,
Kozhencherry East P.O., Pathanamthitta District.
(5) Abraham Thomas, Manaloor Thenalil House,
Keezhukara, Kozhencherry P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
(6) Thomas Varghese, Valliparampil Mary Land,
Thekkemala P.O.,Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta.
(7) Aniyankunju P.M., Pulayakunnil House,
Eraviperoor P.O.,
(8) Manager, Integrated Finance Company Ltd.,
Kumbanad Branch, Thiruvalla,
(9) John V.J, Velamthundiyil House, Pullad P.O.,
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(10) K.O. Philip, Mount Sharon Villa, Chepra P.O.,
Malavila, Ummannoor Village, Kottarakara Taluk.
(11) The Branch Manager, Integrated Finance Co. Ltd.,
Kozhencherry P.O., Pathanamthitta.
(12) The Stock File.
