BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 01st June 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.418/2015
(Admitted on 8.12.2015)
Aruna.J,
W/o late. B.Vijaya,
Aged 63 years,
R/at. Opposite Bloom field,
Phalneer Road,
Highland, Kankandady Post,
Mangalore.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri ABS)
VERSUS
Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd,
Represented by its Chairman,
Manipal House, Manipal.
…. Opposite Party
(Advocate for Opposite Party by Smt. MNA)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainantclaims he bought 16 redeemable subordinate debts issued in nature of promissory notes with attractive rate of interest valued at Rs.1,000/ each from Opposite Party in which an offer was made on the termination of thedate of redemption Opposite Party will return the principal with 12% interest to the buyer. The redemption datewas 30.3.2006. When complainant approached Opposite Party for redemption Opposite Party went on postponing re payment. Opposite Party has no valid reason to the complainant. On 2.3.2015 the complainant personally visited the Opposite Party office at Manipal to honor their words and assurance repayment and make payment. On 28.7.2015 the legal notice was issued to Opposite Party calling upon the paid the amount total Rs.17,280/ with interestat 12% and compensation for Rs.5,00,000/ and cost.
2. Opposite Party on entering appearance filed version contending the complaint is barred by time the cause of action is on 30.3.2006 and the complaint was filed on 1.12.2015 after 9 years and 9 month the complainant making repeated request does not save limitation. In fact shreyas bonds in the nature of promissory notes were issued on private placement and no publicity/advertisement were given by the Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint. The complainant had invested amount as mentioned in the complaint in thepromissory notes issued by Opposite Party is admitted. The shreyas certificate which are redeemable subordinated debts and the period of redemption of 60 months are not deposits are in the nature of promissory notes are governed by Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The complainant onthe redemption datehas not approached in time. Section 66 and 64 of NI Act 1881 mandates that a promissory note made payable at a specific period after date or right thereof must be presented for payment at maturity. Hence the contention that section 24 A complainant is barred by time, hence seeks dismissal.
3. In support of the above complaint the complainantAruna. J,filed affidavit evidence as (CW1)andanswered the interrogatories served on himandproduced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C6 as detailed in the annexure here below.On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Srikara Mallya, (RW1) GPA Holder and authorised signatory,also filed affidavit evidence and S.B. Kalatage answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 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 barred by time?
- 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?
We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Does not survive for consideration.
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i):The complainant is purchaser of redeemable instrument in question were due for payment on 30.3.2006 as pleaded in the Shreyas certificate issued by Opposite Party. The complaint was filed on 4.12.2015 the period of limitation contemplated under section 24 (A)of CP Act is 2 years. Hence complainant filed is barred by time were as dismissed.
6. Points No.(ii):In fact in Punjab National Bank V/s S.P.Sinha reported 1992 State Commission 1815 the Apex Court held that
As long as the same is not repaid but legal remedy for its recovery is lost from the date of limitation prescribed under concerned law
As such is not necessary to detail as to other liabilities and rights of the parties.
7. In fact Opposite Party did not dispute of complainant investing in the instrument of Shreyas certificate as claimed by the complainant. As such the complainant’s investment with Opposite Party as claimed in the complainant now has noremedy. However that does not save the period of the limitation to the complainant. Hence in view of section 24 A of CP Act complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed as barred by the time.
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 5dictated by President to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 1st June 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 Complainant:
CW1 Aruna. J,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1 to C3:Redeemable subordinated debts certificate.
Ex.C4: 28.7.2015: office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.C5: Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.C6: Postal receipt.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1:Mr. Srikara Mallya, GPA Holder and authorised signatory
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: Notarised copy of GPA
Ex.R2: Information memorandum
Ex.R3: Application form No.2610 duly signed by complainant for unsecured redeemable subordinated debt.
Dated: 01.06.2017 PRESIDENT
