FA.No.487/2009 against  C.C.No.220/2006, District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

Between:

Vommi Rama Murthy Chits & Investments Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Vommi Madhusudhana Rao,

Aged 60 years, R/o.36-46-37, M.R.Mansions,

Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam

(All are rep. by GPA holder Mr.Gorla Rakesh

S/o.G.V.Ramana Murthy, aged 37 years,

R/o.Flat No.301, Sri Satya Sai Towers,

Plot No.41, KRM Colony, Visakhapatnam).           .                                   .Appellant/

Opp.party

And

Murugithi Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.M.Kondala Rao,

Aged 39 years, R/o.36-46-93, Kancharapalem

Mettu Visakhapatnam.                                                                                 Respondent/ 

Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant:                :  M/s. K.Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for the Respondent.               Mr.M.Madhusudhana Rao-(PIP)

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

            AND

                        SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Satyanand, Hon'ble Member.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ***

            This is an appeal filed by the opposite party assailing the order passed by the District Forum.

        The facts leading to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

        The complainant joined the opposite party chit fund company as a member by investing a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25-7-2003 and Rs.10,000/- on 25-7-2004 by way of fixed deposit receipts  instead of which the opposite party issued two bonds in the form of promissory notes assuring the return of the amount along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.   The complainant claimed to have questioned the opposite party as to why promissory notes were issued instead of fixed deposit receipts.  Opposite party clarified the position stating that they were in such a habit and that the promissory notes would be treated as F.D. receipts.  The complainant claimed to have believed the words of the opposite party and thereby agreed to receive those two documents.  Opposite party paid interest till November,2004 for December, 2004 interest amount was deposited in opposite party investments but later from January, 2005 it failed to pay the  interest and deposit the amount in complainant’s account as agreed.  In all the complainant to have received only Rs.5,000/- towards part satisfaction of the total amount on 27-1-2004.  The complainant therefore filed this complaint for recovery of the balance amount which he deposited with the opposite party under two fixed deposits with interest from January, 2005.  The complainant also claimed to have suffered mental agony due to the deficiency in service signified by withholding the payments.

        Opposite party remained exparte before the District Forum.

        The complainant filed his own affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A6.

        On a consideration of the evidence tendered by the complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint and granted the relief prayed for with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides costs.

        Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party filed the present appeal contending two important grounds among other insignificant grounds.  It is firstly submitted that the District Forum do not have jurisdiction to decide a dispute arising out of pro notes.  The District Forum ought to have directed the complainant to seek its remedy elsewhere in view of the developments that had taken place on the criminal side.

        Heard counsel for the appellant.

        The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any merits in the appeal?

          The appellant harped very much on the ground that Exs.A1 and A2 bonds clearly show that they were pro notes in contra distinction to F.D. receipts and therefore the allegation arising out of promissory notes ought not to have been taken cognizance by the District Forum.  But the complainant had approached the District Forum with a specific case though ostensibly the instruments were subscribed with the words of promissory notes, they were in substance F.D. receipts in as much as the opposite party failed to convert the facts calculated to accord such kind of nature to the documents in the complaint.  At this distance of time, we feel that it does not lie in the month of the appellant to say that they were mere promissory notes especially when it styled itself as chits and investments company which is more in keeping with the business of accepting F.Ds. among other things.

        The second ground urged by the appellant was that the complainant ought to have invoked other jurisdiction especially in the wake of developments that had occurred on criminal side.  This is an absurd ground.  Apart from these grounds, the appellant could urge no other ground.  Thus we do not see any merits in the appeal.

        The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.  The appellant is granted six weeks time from the date of receipt of this order to comply with the order of the District Forum.

                                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                                         Dated 08-6.2009