Before the District Consumer Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi,M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 10th day of September.2003
C.D. 84/2002
1.K.Naga Raju,
S/o. K.Ram Prasad,
H.No.1/662,
H.B.S.Colony,
R/o Yemmiganur,
Kurnool District.
2.K.Ram Pratap,
S/o. Late K.Ramaiah,
Retired M.D.O,
H.No.1/662,
H.B.S.Colony,
R/o Yemmiganur,
Kurnool District. . . Complainants represented by
Their counsel Sri M.Paramesappa, Advocate
-Vs-
1.M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director
Sridharchari,
Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta,
Hyderanad. . . . Opposite party
2.M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Rep by its Deputy General Manager
K.S.Chandrasekhar,
Nagarjuna Hills,
Panjagutta,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
This consumer disputes case of the complainant is for a direction on the opposite parties to pay him the maturity amount of RS.10, 000/- with interest from the date of the maturity till the date of payment along with costs of case and such other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
The brief facts of the complainants case as per the complaint is that the first complainant is the grand son of second complainant, they have jointly invested for 45 months an amount of RS.5, 000/- with the opposite party on 2.1.1997 and obtained FDR bearing No.C450800686 for having the invested amount along with an interest at 20.31% per annum on maturity. The maturity period of the said FDR was on 2.10.2000 and the amount payable was RS.10,000/-.
The opposite party sent a letter dt 13.3.2000 along with Company Law Board proceedings dt 29.2.2000 stating that the maturity amount of depositors will be paid in accordance with the Company Law Board proceedings. So the complainants addressed a letter dt 27.9.2000, 16.2.2001 and 1.3.2001 to the opposite party requesting to pay the maturity amount of RS.10, 000/- and the letters were served on the opposite parties but did not pay any amount, hence the opposite party has violated the Company Law Board orders dt 29.2.2001, and deceived the complainants of maturity amount of RS.10, 000/- so the complainant got issued a legal notice dt 22.3.2001 to which the opposite party did not respond and their by driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal.
The complainant encloses to the complaint Xerox documents Viz., (1) FDR No.C450800686 dt 2.1.1997 in the name of the complainants showing the deposit of RS.5, 000/- with the period of deposit for 45 months and stipulated rate of interest of 20.31% and the date of maturity 2.10.2000 and the amount payable on maturity as RS.10, 000/- (2) proceedings of Company Law Board dt 29.2.2000(3) letter of Nagarjuna Investors services Limited Hyderabad dt 13.3.2000 (4) complainants letter dt 16.2.2001 to Nagarjuna Investors service Limited (5) letter of Nagarjuna Investors Services limited Hyderabad dt 23.2.2001 (6) complainants letter dt 27.9.2000 to opposite party No.1 with acknowledgement (7) Postal receipt No.1776 dt 27.9.2000 (8) Complainants letter dt 1.3.2001 to the opposite party No.1 (9) office copy of legal notice dt 22.3.2001(10) Postal receipt No.1621 (11) acknowledgement and (12) un audited finance results of opposite parties published in paper.
The opposite parties inspite of the service of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant, did not turn up to the date of appearance on 30.5.2002 but sent a Xerox copy of the order of High Court of Andhra pradesh in W.P.M.P.No.17593/2000 dt 11.7.2001 in W.P.No.14064/2000 by post informing the said Order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.M.P.No.127593/2001 dt 11.7.2001 in the W.P.No.14064/2001 as to the interim stay of all further proceedings in the District Forum in cases filed against Nagarjuna Finance Limited.
The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vacated the interim stay order vide its order dt 9.4.2003 and to the date of hearing subsequent to the said order stood on 16.6.2003. Neither there is representation of the opposite parties nor any of their written version is sent to this Forum to understand of any of their defence to the complaint averments and its of non-liability for the claim made by the complainant and being absent through out to the case proceedings.
Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?:-
The documents enclosed to the complaint even though are the Xerox copies they being not disputed by the opposite party by any contest the case of the complainant is remaining un-rebutted and there by acceptable as a bonafide one and there by those documents are remaining worthy of consideration as admitted documents without requiring any further proof, inspite of the facts of the complainant not filing any sworn affidavit and marking those documents as exhibits.
The documents No.1 acknowledgement receipt of the F.D.R of the complainant issued by the opposite parties envisages it’s issual by the opposite parties with the Hyderabad address. None of the documents filed by the complainant envisages the issual of the said FDR of the complainant at Kurnool on the otherhand the complainant addressed to the opposite parties at Hyderabad address. Hence there remains hardly and material to believe the FDR of the complainant was issued by the Branch of the opposite party at Kurnool. Nor the complainant has made the Kurnool branch of the opposite party as party to this proceeding. Hence the complainant’s case suffers from the infirmity of want of territorial jurisdiction to this Forum as the place of business and address of the opposite parties is at Hyderabad. The complaint also suffers from the infirmity of non-joinder of Kurnool Branch as party to the case and hence the complaint of the complainant is not remaining worthy of being entertained by this Forum.
When such is the case of the complainant in not providing the territorial jurisdiction to this Forum to entertain this case of the complainant. It is not remaining necessary to so into the other material of the case and to decide the case on merits.
Therefore, in the result, the complainant is not remaining entitled for the grant of the any of the reliefs sought for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence this complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances each of the parties to this case to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the open Court the 10th day of September, 2003
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:Nill For the opposite parties:Nill
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
//Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10)
of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
