IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 18^th  day of November, 2019

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member 

C C No. 82/2016 (filed on 05/03/16)

Petitioner                                  :         Sabu Varghese,

                                                          S/o. M.C. Varghese,

                                                          Director,

                                                          Mangalam Homes & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

                                                          S.H. Mount P.O.

                                                          Kottayam.

                                                          Rep. by his Power of Attorney Holder

                                                          Sunil Kumar P.V.

                                                          S/o. P.R. Thankappan nair,

                                                          Thundathil House, North Gate,

                                                          Ettumanoor .

                                                          (Adv. Vinu Jacob Mathew)

                                                                   Vs.                            

Opposite Party                         :   1)   I.D.B.I. Bank Ltd.

                                                          IDBI Towers,

                                                          World Trade Centre Complex,

                                                            22^nd Floor, Cuffe Parade,

                                                          Mumbai – 400005.

                                                          (Adv. Sebi K. Velamparambil)

                                                    2)  M/s. Karvy Computers (P) Ltd.

                                                          Plot No. 17 to 24

                                                          Vittal Rao Nagar,

                                                          Mudhapur, Hydrabad – 500081.

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

          Complainant’s case is as follows.

          The complainant is the holder of Deep Discount Bonds Registered folio Nos. DD01107972, DD00697960, DD00461889,DD00461890 and DD00719421 purchased from the original bond holders Vanka Saraswathi, Sangeetha Jain and minors Aditi Jain, Sruthi Jain represented by Mr. Rajender Prasad through Gavin and Robin share and stock brokers by paying the value.  The original bonds were handed over to the complainant duly signed by the transferors.  Eventhough the complainant was in possession of the original bond certificates he could not get bonds duly transferred in his favour and it was not mandatory also.  When the complainant came to know that the 1^st respondent has redeemed the said bonds before maturity he approached the 1^st opposite party and was directed to approach the 2^nd opposite party who had been entrusted with this task by the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that out of 5 bonds 4 of them have already been redeemed and the redemption proceeds of the bonds were settled in favour of one Rajender Prasad Sharma  based on the indemnity executed by him for the non production of the originals.  Even after repeated requests, the respondents were not ready to take any action in this regard.  On 03/11/15 the complainant sent lawyers notice to the respondent to which the 2^nd respondent replied that the redemption process had already been completed.  The complainant being the holder of the said bonds duly signed by the transferor is legally entitled for the redemption proceeds of the said bonds.  The opposite parties can realise the redemption proceeds from the recipients since the redemption had been done on the basis of                         indemnity provided by them.  The complainant is ready to produce the original bond certificate duly signed along with other documents which the respondents normally demand and which is mandatory for the redemption of bonds.  The opposite parties ought to have invoked and paid the value of the bond to the complainant.  But even after understanding their mistake the opposite parties are not ready to proceed with the claim of the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the redemption proceeds along with the payment of Rs.1 lakh and cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

The complaints were contested by the respondents upon notice from this Forum.  The 1^st opposite party filed version.  The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complainant is not at all the consumer or beneficiary as per the Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover this Forum has not territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  So the complaint is to be dismissed in liminie.  The opposite party denies all the allegations in the complaint.  According to the 1^st opposite party, the holder of the bond No.DDB1107972 is one Vanka Saraswathi and she is still holding the same. 

All the above folios got merged that new single folio bearing No. DDBII 59927 in the name of  Rajender Prasad Sharma and redemption amount is also paid as per their records.  The details of the redemption is

Folio No.FL01 – DDB0697960, Holder name – Sangeet Jain

Folio No.FL01 – DDB0461889, Holder name – Aditi Jain

Folio No.FL01 – DDB0464890, Holder name – Shruti Jain

Folio No.FL01 – DDB0719421, Holder name – Aditi Jain.

The above instruments were paid on 23/11/12.  The instruments were redeemed by the 2^nd opposite party in compliance with the all legal formalities.  The alleged purchase of the bonds by the complainant were not informed to the opposite parties or the complainant did not care to transfer the bonds in his favour, which is his fault.  Further the complainant did not even care to discount the bonds even on its maturity.  The averments that the 1^st respondent was not ready to give the details of Sri. Rajender Prasad Sharma to the complainant and the respondents tried to avoid the complainant is false and denied.  The opposite parties legally replied to the notice sent by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get the redemption proceeds of the said bonds as the same was already paid by the opposite parties in accordance and in compliance with law.  There is no negligence, latches, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  If the complainant has suffered any loss it is because of the negligence on his part, for not transferring the bonds in his favour or not intimating the respondents the purchase of bonds, for which the liability cannot be fastened on the respondent.  The complainant’s remedy, if at all any, lies against the person who has redeemed the bonds.  The averments that the respondents have the option to realise the amount on the basis of the Indemnity is not correct,  It is false and denied that the respondents are not ready to verify the claim forwarded by the complainant.  Hence the 1^st opposite party submits that there is no unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. 

 The complainant filed proof affidavit along with Exts.A₁ to A₁₁ where as the 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit along with Ext.B₁. 

On perusal of the facts and evidences, we consider the following points

1. Whether the forum has territorial jurisdiction?

2. If so, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the     

    opposite party?

3. Reliefs and costs?

 Point No.1

Considering the principal contentions which centres around the question of territorial jurisdiction, it is to be noted that the complainant’s averment is that he had purchased the Deep Discount Bonds from Gabin and Robin, Kottayam.  But Gabin and Robin is not made a party to this complaint.Ext.A3 receipt is issued by Gabin and Robin.  The Ext.A3 does not reveal the exact location of the transaction.  As S.11 (2) of consumer protection act reads, “(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

(2)A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 3carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 4carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

Here, the transaction had alleged to have taken place between the complainant and the original bond holders through Ms.Gabin &Robin. Both the opposite parties have their registered office outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has failed to establish that this forum has ample jurisdiction to hear and dispose the complaint. Considering the principal contention which centres around the territorial jurisdiction of the district forum, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the complaint is dismissed with the liberty to file a fresh complaint before any Forum with appropriate jurisdictions.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of November, 2019.    

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1  :   Power of attorney

A2  :  Copy of Board Resolution (RES/MH/2/2015) of Director of  complainant.

A3  :  Receipt issued by Gabin and Robin.

A4  :  Bond folio no.DD01107972 by IDBI

A5  : Bond folio no.DD00697960 by IDBI

A6  : Bond folio no.DD00461889 by IDBI

A7  : Bond folio no.DD00461890 by IDBI

A8  : Bond folio no.DD00719421 by IDBI

A9  : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.03/11/15

A10 : Postal acknowledgement card (2nos.)

A11 : Copy of guidelines to IDBI bondholders

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

B1 : Copy of indemnity and declaration of Rajender Prasad Sharma.

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                      Senior Superintendent