COMPLAINT FILED: 28.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 10th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1438/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. J. Mahendra Patel,<br /> Aged about 40 years,<br /> Son of Jatalal Patel,<br /> R/at: No. 6/1, C.M.H. Road,<br /> 18th Cross, Lakshmipuram,<br /> Ulsoor,<br /> Bangalore – 560 008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (C. Pattabiraman)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Manipal Finance Corporation Limited,<br /> Branch at Manipal Sowbhagya Nidhi Ltd.,<br /> Blue Cross Chambers, G-3,<br /> Infantry Road Cross,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Manipal Finance Corporation Limited,<br /> Manipal House,<br /> Manipal – 576 119.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the deposits made by the complainant with interest and pay some compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant being lured away with the rate of interest OP promised to pay on the deposits invested his hard earned money in the name of his four children as per the chart given below. <br /> <br /> Name Face <br /> Value Date of<br /> Deposit Period Matured <br /> Date Value<br /> Miss. Archana Rs.12,000/- 23.10.2001 60 Months <br /> 23.10.2006 <br /> Rs.19,764/-<br /> Miss. Deeksha Rs.12,000/- 23.10.2001 60 Months <br /> 23.10.2006 <br /> Rs.19,764/-<br /> Deepak Rs.13,000/- 23.10.2001 60 Months <br /> 23.10.2006 <br /> Rs.21,411/-<br /> Savan Rs.13,000/- 23.10.2001 60 Months <br /> 23.10.2006 <br /> Rs.21,411/-<br /> <br /> Evenafter the maturity period, OP failed to refund the said amount inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant even caused the legal notice on 20.11.2006. Again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that the dispute between the complainant and the OP is not a ‘Consumer’ dispute. The ‘Shreys Certificates are not the deposits certificates. There is no availment of the services as contemplated. Under such circumstances the complaint is not maintainable. It is further contended that OP has filed the company petition bearing No. 89/2005 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka under sec. 391 of the Company Act along with a scheme of settlement and compromise. Though some of the creditors have accepted the said scheme, but few persons like the complainant raised untenable disputes. The said company petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. OP has taken care to protect the interest of the investors as well as the company. Till the disposal of the said company petition, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed nor he accrues any right to file this complaint. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has not filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has invested nearly Rs.50,000/- in the name of his children with the OP with a fond hope of getting lump sum interest. Of course OP has not disputed the fact of receipt of the said deposit. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that evenafter the date of maturity OP failed to refund the said deposits along with the interest. The effort made by the complainant even by causing the legal notice to OP on 20.11.2006, went in vain. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that as the OP has faced the financial crisis, in order to protect the interest of the creditors as well as the company they have moved a company petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which is pending at No. 89/2005. OP has also proposed a scheme of settlement and compromise. The majority of the OP creditors have accepted the same, but few creditors like complainant have filed such kind of disputes. According to OP as long as the said company petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, complainant is not entitled for the refund of the amount as claimed. As the interest of the complainant is also involved in the said company petition, he has to wait till the disposal of the said company petition. If at all complainant chooses to redress his grievance immediately, he may think for impleading him as a party in the said company petition. <br /> <br /> 8. We find some force in the contention of the OP. The same kind of matter has come up before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein their Lordships in a case reported in ILR 2006 KAR page 3570 pleased to accept the appeal of the OP. When the company petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka the question of directing the OP to repay the deposit with interest during the pendency of the procedure under sec- 391 of the Company Act cannot be passed. Hence in the interest of justice, we find it is a fit case, wherein complainant be directed to implead himself in the company petition, if so advised and seek redressal. <br /> <br /> 9. As already observed by us, as long as company petition is pending this Forum cannot direct the OP to settle the claim as prayed by the complainant. The complaint appears to be pre-mature. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. After the disposal of the company petition if he still feels that his rights are not protected he is at liberty to approach the Forum in accordance with the law at an appropriate time. With these observations we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> In view of the observation made in the body of order this complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />