O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Op are, that Op was an investment and finance company invited deposits from the public offering interest @ 15% during the year 1998. He on 26/10/1998 invested Rs.10,000/-with the Op for a period of 36 months. Interest on quarterly basis was paid up to March 1999, thereafter not paid the interest. Then he wrote to Op on 09/08/1999 and on 25/08/1999 requesting to re-pay his investment by way of redemption. During December 2001 State Government formed a committee to look into the affairs of distribution of available money with the Op to the depositors. On 16/01/2002 he got Rs.2,000/- refunded, later another Rs.200/- but balance of Rs.7,800/- is not paid to him. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for refund of that balance amount with interest.<br /> <br /> 2. Op was duly served with the notice of the complaint. Op has filed his version, contending that in a company petition No.02/2000 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by Reserve Bank of India for winding up of Op institution, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has appointed a committee of management comprising Justice K.A. Swami, Former Chief Justice of Madras as Chairman and Dr. K. Srinivasan, Former DGP of Karnataka as a member. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has passed an order regarding payment of deposits directing to liquidate the SLR securities with the leave of the Reserve Bank of India and to pay the depositors pro-rata, to formulate a scheme for a payment of depositors taking into account the liquidate position of the company. The Op admitting the amount due to the complainant as Rs.7,800/-, has further stated to had advised the complainant to apply to them for refund of his money as and when financial position of the op improves. Op has further stated about the liability of the company, liability to its depositors and availability of money. The committee has told the complainant to approach the committee appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka for refund of his money by further contending that the complaint under the circumstances of the case before the forum is not maintainable and in that regard relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission and Karnataka State Commission. Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and we have heard him.<br /> <br /> 3. On perusal of the order of the National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No.2718/02 and another connected matter and the order of the Hon’ble State Commission passed in Appeal No.379/01 with other clubbed matters, we find that the Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission in similar type of matters filed against the Op have held that the complaint against the Ops for the relief is not maintainable before this forum and the aggrieved consumer/s may approach the committee for their relief. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law in these matters we hold that the complaint is not maintainable and we leave it to the liberty to the complainant to approach the committee appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in a company matter for the relief. With the result, we pass the following order. <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to have his grievance redressed by approaching the committee referred to in the body of the order.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />