Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Thursday, the 8^th day of May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 106/2003

Between:

Smt. Shailaja, W/o Nageshwar Rao,

Age: about 25 years, Occ: Employee,

R/o D.No.3-27, RTC Colony,

Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

                      … Complainant

AND

1.       Model chit-corp Ltd.,

D.No.8-2-112, I Floor, RNT Road,

         Opp: Vysya Bank Ltd., Warangal

         Through its Branch Manager.

2.       Model Financial Corporation Ltd.,

          Regd.Off:6-3-456/A/1, Model House,

          Punjagutta, Hyderabad-82

          Through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. B. Sridhar,  Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties          : Sri Y. Aravind,  Advocate.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                                   ORDER

Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Shailaja against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay the Maturity value of Rs.1,40,000/- and to award Rs.25,000/- towards damages.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

          The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the Opposite party No.1 on 9-5-01  and Rs.40,000/- on 16-5-01 and Opposite party No.1 issued model security bonds under the name and style of Opposite party No.2, each bond worth Rs.1,000/- each total bonds issued 1000/- each,  and issued certificate bearing Nos.28334, 28335, 28336, 28337, and 28450 in favour of complainant and date of maturity is 10-5-2002 and 17-5-2002.  After the maturity period, the complainant handed over the certificates to Opposite party No.1 and they acknowledged the same and requested for 15 days for repayment of the certificates with a promise that the amounts will be paid on that day. After completion of 15 days the complainant demanded the Opposite parties to repay the said certificates maturity amount and thereafter the complainant several times demanded for payment of certificates of maturity amounts, but the Opposite parties have not paid the same to the complainant.  Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice to the Opposite parties, but they failed to pay the same.  As such the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum.

          The Opposite parties not filed the Written Version.

          The complainant in support of her claim filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of Opposite party No.1 Ch.Narsimha Murthy, on behalf of Opposite party No.2 Sri G.V.Subrahmanyam filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination and

also marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.

Now the point for consideration whether this Forum has got jurisdiction or not. 

          After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:

The complainant filed this case against the Opposite parties, they are Model Chit Corporation Limited and Financial Corporation Limited and direct them to pay an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- of the certificate bonds @ 14% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of realization of the amounts damages and compensation of rs.25,000/- with cost.

          This is a case of 106/2003 filed in the year 2003.  Since that time the counsel for Opposite parties filed Petitions and Memos stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter and decided whether this Forum has got jurisdiction or not.  The counsel for the Opposite parties filed a Memo stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter and further he also filed a citation of A.P. High court and National Commission Order.  After issuance of notices to other side Advocate and after arguments of Opposite party Advocate this Forum decided whether this Forum has got jurisdiction or not and we posted this matter on 6-5-2008.  Now this Forum has got jurisdiction or not for that our answer is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter because Opposite party No.2 filed an application under section 391 (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying for approval of a scheme of arrangement between M/s.Model Financial Corporation Ltd., and M/s Model Chit Corp Ltd.,and their respective shareholders and secured bond holders to meet the liabilities.  The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh pleased to pass orders in C,A.No.531 of 2002 in C.P.No.83/2002 connected with C.A.No.182 of 2002, dated 11-07-2002 stating all the proceedings including filing of any civil suits for a period of 8 weeks subject to the condition that the proceedings would be initiated only with the prior approval of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Later on C.P.No.83 of 2002 and 84 of 2002 were disposed on 25-06-2003 aggrieved by that Opposite party No.2 hereunder had preferred before Bench of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh vide S.A.No.69 of 2003 and OSA No.71

of 2003 as per Common Judgement dated 13-01-2006.  The order passed by the learned Company Judge in C.Pno.83 and 84 of 2002 were set aside and remanded for fresh disposal and are pending. And further similarly in  Revision Petition 745 of 2005 filed by Opposite party No.2 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi against the order dated 27-12-2004 in Appeal No.1008 of 2004 against Smt. Leela Devi and others an order is passed on 27-09-2005 to the effect that ‘warrant of arrest shall not be executed and the same is continuing.  Further in similar case of M/s.Lloyds Finance Ltd., decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in R.P.No.1768 of 2000 and R.P.No.1769 of 2000 and R.P.No.2886 of 2005 on3-4-2007 was held that we hereby direct that neither State Commissions nor District Forums would proceed further with disputes which are pending against the Opposite parties and are submitting this memo without prejudice to the right of filing written version in the C.D. and while reserving such right.

          In the light of the aforesaid Judgment the Opposite parties submit that the nature of claim of before the Hon’ble Forum is well within the framework of those case laws.  And further the counsel for the complainant argued that this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this matter for this the counsel for Opposite parties clearly shows that in Ex.B-1 the benefits issued in Column No.12 of Terms and Conditons “ the benefits issued pursuant hereto shall be governed by the laws in force in India and only the Courts in Hyderabad shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide any dispute thereunder.”    

          So as per Ex.B-1 Col.No.12, it clear cut that the cases against the Opposite parties shall be filed only at Hyderabad Courts and Hyderabad Courts shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and decided any disputes.  So on the basis of Ex.B-1 it is clear cut that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter except closing this matter and directing the complainant to go and file the same before the concerned court.  Hence, we answer this point accordingly in favour of the Opposite parties against the complainants.

          In the result this main complaint is closed and also directing the complainant to go and file this case before the concerned court i.e., at Hyderabad.  As this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter, the complainant has to file this case in a competent court within stipulated time under law.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 8^th May, 2008).

                                                      Sd/-                 Sd/-            Sd/-

                                                Member            Member        President.

                                                  District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant filed                          Vakalat filed,No Written Version

                                                                  Filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Model secured bonds.
2. Ex.A-2 Model secured bonds
3. Ex.A-3 Letter from Opposite party No.1 to complainant.
4. Ex.A-4 Letter from Opposite party NO.1 to Complainant.
5. Ex.A-5 Letter from Opposite party NO.1 to Opposite party No.2.
6. Ex.A- Office copy of Legal notice issued  by complainant Advocate to Opposite parties  dt.10-11-2003 .
7. Ex.A-7 Under Certificate of posting.
8. Ex.A-8 Acknowledgement Due by Opposite party.

 On behalf of Opposite party.

  1. Ex.B-1 to B-5 are Xerox copies of Model secured bonds.

                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                      President.