Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smr C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 16th day of July, 2003
C.D. No.74/2002
G.Janardhana Reddy,
Plot NO.90, Rajeswari Nagar,
B-Camp Post,
Kurnool District-518002. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri .P.Siva sudarshan,
Advocate
-Vs-
1. M/s Lloyds Finance Limited
2nd Floor, Sanidhya Complex,
Opp.Sanyas Ashram,
Ashram Road,
Ahemadabad-380 009.
2. Lloyds Finance Limited,
303, 3rd Floor,
Tarrahandal Complex,
Opp.A.G.Office, Saifabad,
Hyderabad-500 004. .. .Opposite parties represented by their
Counsel Sri.N.A.Jairaj, Advocate.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of F.D.R.No.08988002245/1 maturing on 18.05.2000 with 24% interest towards mental agony, Rs.1,000/- towards the costs and such other reliefs which the complainant may entitle in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case as per his invalid complaint which is wanting the verification of its contents by the complainant, is that the complainant deposited Rs.29,000/- on 08.06.1998 with the opposite party and obtained F.D.R No.08988002245/1 which shall mature after 24 months i.e. on 18.05.2000 and on maturity the complainant submitted to the opposite party on 16.08.2001 the same duly discharging it for payment of the mature amount. Inspite of several demands and legal notice dated 12.11.2001 the opposite party neither complied the demand nor replied to it and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant enclosed to the complaint Xerox copy of the receipt dated 16.08.2001 issued by the opposite party and lawyer’s notice dated 12.11.2001 for reliance and filed a sworn affidavit of G.Padmavathamma who is having no concern with the cased, but who swears in re-iteration of the complaint averments as complainant. The said documents filed are marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for appreciation.
4. While the opposite parties remained absent to the date of hearing on 16.04.2002 inspite of the notice of the Forum as to this case, but on 30.04.2002 a vakalat, counter and Xerox documents were filed in the office for the opposite parties.
5. The counter said to have been filed on behalf of the opposite parties is in an invalid one for want of its due verification by the concerned opposite parties under their signature. It alleges that the complaint is not maintainable both in law and facts requiring the strict proof of the complainant averments by the complainant. The opposite party being anon banking Finance Company registered as Public Limited Company was carrying on business under the provisions of R.B.I. Act and Section 45 of the said Act and under the regulations framed there under. The complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party depositing Rs.29,000/- vide deposit report No.08988002246/1 under monthly interest scheme and hence the privy between the complainant and the opposite party is of a contractual one and it is a commercial transaction with an intention to earn periodical interest and hence commercial contractual transaction are not covered within the preview of the C.P. Act. As the said deposit was made at Hyderabad it questions the territorial jurisdiction of this district Forum to entertain this complaint. It further submits that for the default of repayment of deposit either by the Financial Company or Industrial Company the remit arises under companies Act under Sec.58 of the R.B.I Act. The company Law Board western Region Branch, Mumbai vide its order dated 15.04.1999 and re-schedule dated 22.12.2000 a quasi judicial body/after due hearing of both sides issued directions for the payment of the public deposits basing on the slab of the deposit and maturity period of each deposit and hence and dispute between the parties regarding the nonpayment attracts civil remedies and not under the C.P. Act. The complainant in know of the above and in suppression of them resorted to the Forum while the said decision of the company Law Board is binding equally the complainant and the opposite parties. Therefore, seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs as not maintainable under Section 45.O.A(20 of R.B.I. Act. The opposite parties a\encloses an un-attested the Xerox copy of the order in the company petition No .L.F.L./45 O.A(2) /CLB/WR/2000 DT22.12.2000of CLB Western Region Brach, Mumbai.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought:-
7. The cause title of the complainant says G.Padmavathamma as the complainant and the said complaint is silent as to the place of transaction and on the other hand mentions the place of the opposite parties as at Ahmadabad and Hyderabad. While such is so the opposite arties counter say the place of the transaction for obtaining the deposit and said certificates was as Hyderabad. The complainant’s side neither rebutted the same nor placed any such co-gent material as to the origination of the transaction of the said deposit and certificate as a t Kurnool to provide any territorial jurisdiction to this Forum at Kurnool i.e. the transaction of accepting deposits and issual of certificates at Kurnool by any of the Branch of the opposite parties at Kurnool.
8. While the compliant and the Ex.A2 the Office copy of the legal notice say G.Janardhan Reddy as complainant as deposited the said amount and obtained certificate from the opposite parties the sworn affidavit of G.Padmavathamma filed on the complainant’s side says herself as the complainant as deposited the said amount and obtained the certificates from the opposite parties and alleged the cause of action as to herself and thereby creates a confusion as to the actual complainant who is competent to claim any cause of action for filing this case.
9. The opposite parties except filing an invalid counter in answer to the complaint averments and filing of an unattested Xerox copy of CLB Order which cannot be taken into consideration for want of its original or a properly certified copies and taking several please as to the provisions applicable to the disputes in between the opposite parties and the complainant is under Company Law and the R.B.I. Act did not place any such material in appreciation and enlightenment of their stand.
10. Further the complainant also has not displayed and diligence in prosecuting the matter as she left the case unrepresented to several dates of hearing subsequent to 25.04.2003 marking the case part heard.
11. As the complainant has no answer to the disputes raised by the opposite parties as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the complainant placed any such cogent material providing it territorial jurisdiction of this forum to entertain the complainant grievances it is not remaining necessary to go into the other material to decide the case on merits.
12. As the complainant has any valid complaint on record or any consistency as to who is the complainant or any positive material on the complainant’s said for holding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain his grievances the complainant’s case is dismissed and in the circumstances each of the party to this case bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court this the 16th day of July, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 The attached Xerox copy of the receipt dated 16.08.2001 issued by the opposite party No.2.
Ex.A2 The office copy of the Lawyer’s notice dated 12.11.2001 to the opposite parties.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
