CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.188/06
Monday the 28th day of March,2011
Petitioner : Jayalelitha Harikumar,
Kudiyilthazhathu,
Payyappady PO, Puthupally and now
Residing at Harisree,
Kalathilpady, Vadavathoor PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K.P. Somanatha Panicker)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Manager
M/s Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.,
CSI Commercial Complex,
Baker Junction, Kottayam.
2) Managing Director,
Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.,
“Vairamas” 112, Thyagaraya Road,
Chennai.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant presented on 4-10-2006 is as follows. The opposite parties are finance company accepting deposits from the public by offering attractive interest rates on the deposits. The opposite party accepted a Bond certificate deposit from the complainant and her husband on 6/12/2000 for Rs.4,02,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs two thousand ) The bond certificate No. BOA 00564 issued to them. The F.D.was for 60 months and its date of maturity was on 5-12-2005. Complainant husband, joint bond holder died on 16/5/06.
On the date of maturity on 5/12/2005 the complainant personally approached the opposite party but the 2nd opposite party did accept the F.D certificate. Since the complainants neither received the repayment of Bond amount nor any response. The opposite parties were not inclined to make the repayment and its officials were putting off the repayment citing one or other reasons. But the opposite party has not repaid the amount till date. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount to the complainant along with interest. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. The only option if at all open to the complainant is to approach the appropriate Civil Court for proper remedy based on the allegations in the complaint. The 1st opposite party company has filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for the approval of a scheme of arrangements/compromise between the opposite party and its deposit holders under Section391/394 of the Companies Act 1956. Pursuant to the said application and the Judge’s summons for directions, a meeting of the deposit holders of the opposite party was convened and held in Chennai on 10th August 2005 to consider and if thought fit to approve with or without modification the compromise or arrangement proposed to be made as aforesaid. At the meeting of the deposit holders, the following Resolution was passed by the deposit holders present in person and by proxy representing 79% of the value of the deposits that is more than3/4th majority. “Resolved that the consent of the deposit holders of the company be and is hereby accorded to the scheme of arrangement/compromise between opposite party 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 Resolutions are now placed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for appropriate orders approving the scheme of arrangement/compromise.
Further the 1st opposite party company has also filed a petition under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act 1956 before the Madras High Court on 3-9-2005 as C.A. No.1409/05 for obtaining an order of stay of the commencement or continuation of any suit or proceedings against the opposite parties and the same is also pending.
In the above circumstances, the complainant being deposit holders are also bound by the above mentioned Resolutions duly passed by over 3/4th majority of the deposit holders, subject to the final decision of the Madras High Court.
The Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, has in a similar complaint numbered as CC No.3/2006 filed before it against the opposite party company, passed orders on 30-3-2006 refusing to entertain the complaint holding that if the Hon’ble High Court passes an order accepting the prayer made by the opposite party (the opposite party company herein ) to frame a scheme no purpose will be served by entertaining this complaint on the ground that the parties will be bound by the orders to be passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the petition filed by the opposite party.
In this circumstance, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and document which is marked as Ext.A1 to A4. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B4
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not refund the F.D amount with interest even after maturity. According to them the opposite parties purposefully withhold the F.D. amount without any reasons. The opposite party has taken a contention that there was a company case pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court and an SLP was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the opposite parties the 3/4th majority of the deposit holders was submitted a resolution before the Madras High Court. So according to the opposite parties the decision of the Madras High Court is binding to the complainants. Admittedly the complainant had deposited Rs 4,02,000/-( Four lakhs and two thousand only)with the opposite party as Bond on 6-12-2000. At the date of maturity complainant is entitled for Rs.54270/-(Fifty four thousand two hundred and seventy only) as interest. The opposite party has not disputed the deposit. Moreover there was no evidence adduced by the opposite parties to show that there was any stay from the apex courts. There is no reason to kept the consumer complaint pending before this Forum even without any stay from the Higher Authorities. We have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainants. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows: (1) we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,02,000/-(..Rupees Four lakhs and two thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment as per Ext..A1 along with Rs.54270/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand two hundred and seventy only) as maturity value of the bond. (2) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs 5000/- as costs of these proceedings. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant.
Ext.A1 is the copy of Bond certificate dtd 6-12-2000 to 5-12-2005
Ext.A2-is the copy of reply lawyer notice dtd 27-12-2005
Ext.A3-is the copy of death certificate dtd 1/6/2006
Documents produced by Opposite parties
Ext.B1 is the copy of power of attorney dtd 21/11/2005
Ext.B2 is the copy of power of attorney dtd 14/3/2008
ExtB3 is the copy of Madras High court order dtd 19/8/2006
Ext.B4 is the copy of Judgement of Kerala State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission dtd.30-11-2006.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
