The complainant’s case is as follows:

            The complainant had invested 10 secured redeemable Non-convertible Regular Income Bonds of Rs.1,000/- each in the respondent company. The respondent had issued a bond certificate to the complainant dated 16/12/2000. The date of redemption of the bonds are noted in the certificate as 15/12/2005 i.e. the maturity date. At the time of investment, the complainant had opted for the interest payment quarterly and the same has been received by the complainant upto the quarter end of 31^st March 2005 and no interest has been received from that day onwards. Since the bond has become due for redemption, the complainant requested the respondent to return the bonds and interest as agreed. But there was no positive attitude from the respondents and the complainant issued a notice to the respondent on 15/12/2005 asking the respondent to pay the amount covered by the bonds along with the interest. The complainant had surrendered the bond certificate to the respondent on the next day as suggested by them, which was duly acknowledged by them as per receipt dated 16/12/2005. But after that the respondent sent a reply to the notice stating untenable contentions. As per the scheme of settlement which the respondent company claimed to have been passed, the company should settle all the deposit holders upto maturity value of Rs.20,000/- as and when it fall due. Therefore the respondent can not be heard to say any excuse in this regard. There is clear deficiency in the service of the respondents towards the complainant. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. Counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 is that :

The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant has not hired any service for consideration from the opposite parties. All the averments in the complaint filed by the complainant are denied by the opposite parties. The allegations that the respondents are withholding the amount with interest amounts to deficiency in service and the respondents are liable to compensate the sufferings of the complainant are all false and are denied. The allegation that the complainant had demanded the above amount from the respondents is also not correct and denied. Further the 1^st respondent company has filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for the approval of a scheme of arrangement/compromise between respondent company and its bond holders as company Application No.855 of 2005 under Section 391 of the Companies Act 1956. Pursuant to the said application and the Judge’s summons for directions, a meeting of the bond holders of the 1^st respondent company was convened and held in Chennai on 10^th August 2005 to consider and if thought fit to approve with or without modification the compromise or arrangement proposed to be made as aforesaid. It was resolved that the consent of the bondholders of the Company be and is hereby accorded to the scheme of arrangement/compromise between Integrated Finance Company Limited and its class of creditors as provided in the notice calling this meeting. Further Resolved that the Board of Directors of the Company be and are hereby authorized to make and /or consent to the modifications, alterations or amendments in the scheme, which are desired directed or imposed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras or any other Authority. The Resolution are now placed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for appropriate orders.   Further a petition is pending before the Madras High Court for obtaining an order of stay of the commencement or continuation of any suit or proceedings against the respondents. In the above circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the complainant being a bondholder is also bound by the above mentioned Resolutions duly passed by over 3/4^th majority of the bond holders. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and dismiss.

 

            3. The points for consideration are :

1)Is there any deficiency in service ?

2)If so reliefs and costs ?

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4. 

 

            5. The case is filed to get refund of the value of 10 bonds of Rs.1,000/- each with interest. 

 

            6. According to the complainant he had invested 10 Bonds of Rs.1000/- each in the respondent company. The respondent has issued bond certificate with No.01446.   The date of redemption of bonds is noted in the certificate as 15/12/2005. Since bond has become due the complainant requested to redeem the interest but was not done. 

 

            7. In the counter respondents stated that the first respondent filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for the approval of a scheme of arrangement between the company and its bond holders. The meeting of the bond holders was held in Chennai and resolutions were passed and those were placed before Hon’ble High Court of Madras for appropriate orders. They also stated that the complainant being a bond holder is also bound by the resolutions passed subject to the final decision of the Madras High Court.

 

            8. Exhibit P2 is the receipt issued by 2^nd respondent stating the maturity value and date. The transaction is admitted by the respondents. The only difficulty is refund of the amount subject to the decision of Madras High Court . In the counter the respondents stated that Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in a similar case refused to entertain the complaint holding that if the Hon’ble High Court passes an order accepting the prayer made by the respondents to frame a scheme no purpose will be served by entertaining this complaint. He also produced the copy of the order. The order is dated 30/3/2006. Till date no order is seen passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. No document is produced by either side to show that Madras High Court pronounced an order. There is no stay from any Court to proceed with. So we think it is better to pass appropriate orders.

 

            9. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with 14.16% interest from 1/4/2005 till realization with cost Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within a month.

 

            Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced

in the open Forum this the 3^rd day of July 2009.