BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,MANGALORE
Dated this the 24th May 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.48/2016
(Admitted on 22.01.2016)
1. P. Nagamuthu .. Nagamuthu Kabaka,
S/o Palani, aged about 63 years,
2. P. Nagaraja,
S/o P. Nagamuthu, aged about 24 years,
3. Manjula,
D/o P. Nagamuthu, aged about 22 years,
All are residing at 3.20, Polya house,
Kabaka Village and Post, Puttur Taluk,
D.K. District.
….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri SP)
VERSUS
Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Manipal House, Manipal, 576119,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory.
….......OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Smt. MNA)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainants against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under
The complainants claim complainant No.1 invested his hard earned money in the name of complainants on various days in Shreyus certificates issued by opposite party on which it assured to give interest at 11% per annum on the deposited amount on maturity. In 2006 the certificates have matured and complainants are entitled for the same schedule amount. Opposite party did not pay the amount despite demand promised to make payment on issue of legal notice. Legal notice was issued on 2.11.2015 calling upon to pay the amounts. As such seeks the relief as mentioned in the complaint there is deficiency in service on making payment despite demand.
2. Opposite party in the version mentions Shreyas Certificates are called as Subordinated Debts as per NBFC Prudential Norms (RBI) Directors dated 31.1.1998. Clause No.XVII of NBFC Prudential Norms defines Subordinated Debt as a fully paid up capital instrument and is not redeemable at the instance of the holder or without the consent of RBI. They are issued in the nature of promissory notes are not deposit and are negotiable/saleable instruments in the stock market by endorsement and delivery in the denomination of Rs.1000. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and complaint is barred by time. The normal refund of Subordinated Debt certificates which were due on 08.07.2006 and 01.07.2006 had cause of action stated on those two days and the claim beyond 08.07.2009 and 01.07.2009 respectively and hence complaint is barred by time. Issue of demand notice does not renew the period of limitation. On 05.03.2010 lawyer notice got issued by complainant. These certificates were issued on 03.07.2001 and 22.05.2001 from opposite party’s regional office at Udupi. Hence the proceedings in this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. In support of the above complaint, complainants Mr. P. Nagamuthu Nagamuthu Kabaka, Mr. P. Nagaraja and Miss Manjula filed joint affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered to the interrogatories served on them and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C11 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Srikara Mallya (RW1) GPA Holder and Authorized Signatory of the Respondent Company also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 as detailed in the annexure here below.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by parties. Our findings on the points are as under follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Negative
Point No. (iii) : As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i) & (ii): As seen from the Ex.C3 to C10 the copies of the Shreyus Redeemable, Subordinated Debts- Series to Forum issued by opposite parties to complainant they are all redeemable and negotiable conduct of notes and they are documents which could have been transacted through stock exchanges.
6. Hence it was argued for opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Secondly they also argued that these securities were redeemable on 08.07.2006 on 01.07.2006 and on 08.07.2006 but the present complaint is filed in 2016 i.e. on 22.1.2016 beyond the two years period contemplated under section 24-A of C P Act. It was the case of the complainant that despite demand payment not made by opposite party to complainant as such ultimately legal notice was issued in-spite of service of notice payment were not made.
7. In this case the learned counsel for opposite party has drawn our attention to a reported case of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Kaulgud Constructions Pvt Ltd vs State Bank of India & Anr II (2012) CPJ 285 NC it held:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24 A, 21(b) Limitation Condonation of delay Deposition of cheque Amount released after 55 days Negligence District Forum dismissed complaint State Commission dismissed appeal Hence revision Any relief can be claimed under Act, 1986 within two years from the date on which cause of action accrues Deficiency in service has occurred on 7.7.2006 when cheque was deposited Subsequent correspondence between parties is not to be taken as recurring cause of action to seek remedy under Act Complaint barred by imitation.
8. Though Forum has got jurisdiction in view of the interpretation given to section 24 A of C P Act this claim by the complainant against complainant is clearly barred by time. Hence while answering point No.1 in the affirmative and point No. 2 in the negative.
9. POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24th May 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M. RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:
CW1 Mr. P. Nagamuthu Nagamuthu Kabaka, Mr. P. Nagaraja and Miss Manjula
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Postal receipts
Ex.C2: Office copy of the lawyers Notice dated 05.03.2010
Ex.C3: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C4: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C5: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C6: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C7: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C8: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C9: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C10: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Ex.C11: Copy of the certificate of investments issued by the Opposite party
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Srikara Mallya, GPA Holder and Authorized Signatory of the Respondent Company
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: Notarised copy of GPA
Dated: 24.5.2017 PRESIDENT
