By Jayasree Kallat, Member The complaint is filed by Sri. T.K. Purushothaman and his wife Kanakalatha alleging unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. The petitioners became joint holders of fifty secured redeemable Non-convertible Regular Income Bonds worth Rs.50000/-. The opposite party issued the bonds on 6-12-2000 stipulating the redemption date as on 5-12-05. The respondent had given periodical interest amounts to the petitioners regularly upto June 2005. After June 2005 the opposite parties failed to provide interest. After the date of redemption on 5-12-05 the petitioner contacted the opposite parties and requested for the total repayment of bond amount of Rs.50000/- with interest from July onwards. The opposite parties did not comply with the request. The petitioners had contacted the opposite parties several times but opposite party did not respond. Petitioner had sent a lawyer notice to which opposite parties had responded denying all the averments contained in the notice. The petitioners did not receive any notice regarding the convening of a meeting of the depositors and bond holders. As the petitioners were never a party in the legal proceedings before the Madras High Court. Petitioner alleges that opposite party was conducting business by adopting unfair business practice. As both the petitioners had become prey to the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties they have filed the petition before the Forum. Opposite party-1 was represented but later on did not appear in court. Opposite party-2 had appeared and filed a version on 14-5-09. For the next consecutive postings opposite party-2 did not appear. Hence on 30-7-09 both opposite party-1 and 2 were called absent and set exparte. The first complainant, T.K. Purushothaman had filed affidavit, on behalf of himself and his wife Kanakalatha, second complainant. First complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on complainant’s side. Ext.A1 to A4 shows that the complainants were bond holders of the opposite parties. Ext.A5 is the letter which shows that the complainant had requested the opposite party to refund the bond amount along with interest as the bonds were matured on 5-12-05. The documents Ext.A1 to A8 clearly shows that both the complainants had taken the bonds of the opposite parties and had paid Rs.50000/- towards the bonds. Opposite parties had promised to refund the amount along with interest but they failed to do so even after the maturity period. This shows that the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practice which caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainants. The petition was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to repay the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with an interest of 9% from July 2005 onwards to the petitioners. A cost of Rs.1000/- was also allowed. Against this order pronounced by the Forum on 11-8-2009 the opposite parties preferred Appeal before the State Commission as Appeal No.525 of 2009. The State Commission found that as the Counsel for the opposite parties did not appear before the Forum, the order of the Forum was not a considered one. The Order of the Forum was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Forum, on condition that the Appellant pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as cost. As per the Order of the State Commission notice was issued to the parties to appear on 13-8-2010. The complainant appeared before the Forum. Notice sent to the opposite party-1 Integrated Finance, Chennai was returned back with endorsement “Left”. Notice sent to opposite party-2 Integrated Finance, Kozhikode received the notice but did not appear before the Forum on 13-8-2010. The opposite parties did not either appear before the Forum or deposit the amount directed by the State Commission. The Complainant had represented that the counsel of the opposite party had directly sent a cheque for Rs.5000/- to the complainant. As the opposite parties-1 and 2 did not appear before the Forum as directed by the State Commission the Forum had set the opposite parties exparte. The Forum had already heard the complainant and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked through PW1 the complainant No.1 in this case. From the evidence of PW1 and the documents the Forum had already found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence directed the opposite parties to repay the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with an interest of 9% from July 2005 onwards to the petitioners-1 and 2. Forum had allowed a cost of Rs.1000/-. As the petitioners are dragged from Forum to the State Commission and back and still the opposite parties are evading and not appearing before the Forum, we are of the opinion that the order of 11-8-2009 should prevail. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- in addition to the earlier order as cost of the proceedings. Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of August 2010. SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Photocopy of letter dt. 6-12-2000 sent by first O.P. to the first complainant. A2. Photocopy of Bone Certificate dt. 6-12-2000. A3. Photocopy of letter dt. 6-12-2000 sent by first O.P. to the second complainant A4. Photocopy of Bone Certificate dt. 6-12-2000. A5. Photocopy of Regd. Letter sent by the complainants to O.P.1 dt. 12-12-05. A6. Photocopy of Lawyer notice dt. 13-12-06. A7. Photocopy of Reply notice dt. 30-12-06. A8. Photocopy of Lawyer notice dt. 18-1-07. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Witness examined for the opposite party. PW1. T.K. Purushothaman ( First complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
