NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3548/2006

MR.RAJWANT SINGH AND ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. V.KANTHAIAH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. JAYANT K.MEHTA

22 Mar 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3548 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 10/12/2006 in Appeal No. 1781/2005 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MR.RAJWANT SINGH AND ORS.MANAIGH DIRECTOR M/S. KANTECH AGRO P.LTD 80. LACANYA APARTMENTS NEAR BALAJI PETROL BULK 13TH. CROSS. GANGA VIHAR ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. MR. V.KANTHAIAH82/2. RESPONDENT S,R, NAGAR HYDERABAD 500038 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

This revision petition has been filed by opposite parties/respondents no. 1, 3 & 4 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (‘District Forum’ for short) and the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad (‘State Commission’ for short) against the order dated 12th of October, 2006 of the State Commission, vide which the State Commission, while setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the District Forum, has directed them to refund Rs.5.00 Lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from 1st of January, 2002 till realization and also to pay a cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the complainant against the other two opposite parties/respondents i.e. opposite parties no. 2 and 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri V. Kanthaiah, respondent/complainant, on being persuaded by Shri M. Ramulu, a Director of M/s Telangana Seeds Company at Nizamabad (opposite party no.4 before the District Forum) that M/s Kantech Agro (P) Ltd. had a great potential as their Directors are having a multi-national company by the name of M/s Indo China Agro Products with a tie-up with well-known Chinese company for marketing ‘Penshibao’, a plant growth tonic, with crores of turn over; he deposited a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs on 02.01.1999, which was to give a return of Rs.5.00 Lakhs within a period of three years. Shri Prabhakar Reddy, the General Manager of M/s Kantech Agro (P) Ltd., opposite party no.5 before the District Forum, issued a receipt-cum-bond for the deposit and also issued a post dated (01/01/2002) cheque for Rs.5.00 Lakhs to the complainant. Later on, however, it came to notice of the complainant that the information given by Shri M. Ramulu, opposite party no.4, was not correct and, therefore, apprehending that his deposit may be at stake, requested the opposite parties for the refund of his amount. He also approached Shri Ramulu, opposite party no.4, in the matter who stated that it is opposite party no.1, the Managing Director, who should be approached in the matter. When opposite party no.1 was approached, he did not pay any heed to his request and in turn asked the complainant to bring Shri Ramulu, opposite party no.4. Finding that the opposite parties were only dragging the matter and the post-dated cheque issued was bounced, the complainant in order to avoid the complaint being barred by limitation filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secundrabad. He also filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of Rs.5.00 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of maturity until realization. He also requested for Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation on account of inconvenience, hardships, mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/- besides Rs.10,000/- towards cost of correspondence and transport etc. The complaint was resisted by all the opposite parties. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties and on consideration thereof, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the receipt-cum-bond claimed to have been signed by Shri Prabhakar Reddy in the capacity of being the General Manager of the company could not be treated as a ‘receipt-cum-bond’ as it did not bear the designation underneath the signature and that said Shri Prabhakar Reddy had not been made a party in the complaint. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide its order dated 12th of October, 2006 set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint as against opposite parties/respondents no. 1, 3, and 4 (the present petitioners) and directed them to return Rs.5.00 Lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from 1st of January, 2002 and to pay cost of Rs.2000/-. Opposite party/respondent no. 2 before the District Forum and the State Commission were discharged from any liability as she had resigned her Directorship prior to the deposit made by the complainant and the proceedings against respondent no.5 were not pressed by the complainant before the State Commission. It was in this backdrop that the opposite parties/respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 being aggrieved have filed this revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. The dispute pertains to whether the complainant, pursuant to his acquaintance with petitioner no.3/opposite party no.4, Mr. M. Ramulu, had indeed deposited a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs to get a return of Rs.5.00 Lakhs after a period of three years and whether the receipt-cum-bond issued by Shri Prabhakar Reddy could be treated as authentic and whether the petitioners would be held liable to refund the deposit of the complainant as per promise. A perusal of Exhibit A1 (page 65 of the paper-book), which is the receipt-cum-bond, makes it clear that it has been written in hand by one Prabhakar Reddy. It is on the letterhead of M/s Kantech Agro (P) Ltd. There is no stamp indicating the status of Shri Prabhakar Reddy as to whether he was the General Manager of the company. However, a perusal of the post-dated cheque (page 14 of paper-book Vol.V) clearly shows that it bears the signature of Prabhakar Reddy and also the rubber stamp indicating that he was the General Manager of the company. We further find that the petitioners/opposite parties in their reply to the complaint before the District Forum have been quite ambivalent and have not clearly stated that the sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs was neither received by them through Prabhakar Reddy nor have they denied that any such promise was given to the complainant that he would get a maturity amount of Rs.5.00 Lakhs after three years. The records before the fora below do not disclose any averment that they never received the deposit. Even at the time of argument before us, learned counsel for the petitioners has made no such assertion. The onus was on them to have produced the complete receipt and expenditure statement or any other record to show that no such transaction was ever effected. Since their contention is that said Prabhakar Reddy was subsequently removed from the service, their plea that he had subsequently issued the receipt or the post-dated cheque cannot be believed. We also find from the records that petitioner no.3/opposite party no.4, Mr. M. Ramulu, had in his post-card addressed to the complainant (page 18 of the paper-book Vol.V) has referred to a discussion regarding ‘Bangalore Issue’ and requested him to attend his office for discussion on 6th of April, 2003 at 11.00 AM. This only lends support to the contention of the complainant that Shri Ramulu, petitioner no.3/opposite party no.4, had a role to play in the deposit of the complainant. The post dated cheque clearly bears the signature of General Manager, Shri Prabhakar Reddy, along with stamp of the company, which has bounced. The State Commission has, therefore, rightly held that a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs had been deposited by the complainant with the hope of making Rs.5.00 Lakhs within a period of three years and, therefore, the petitioners/opposite parties are clearly deficient in service, as they have failed to honour the promised return of the complainant’s investment. The State Commission has also very rightly held that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act have got nothing to do with the consumer complaint as they are criminal in nature and the complainant under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is fully entitled to agitate his grievance before the consumer fora. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much stress on the fact that the complainant at no stage arrayed Shri Prabhakar Reddy, General Manager of the company and, therefore, have contended that the complainant has connived with him and fabricated a claim. This contention has only to be rejected since it is not their case that Prabhakar Reddy was neither authorized to sign the cheque nor was their General Manager ever. If they have a case against Prabhakar Reddy, they will be at liberty to sue him for recovery but the complainant cannot be made to suffer on this count. Under the circumstances, we find no force in this revision petition and, accordingly, dismiss the same, however, with no order as to cost.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER