This case is coming on 30-7-2014 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Mariadas, Advocate for the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party set exparte and Sri K.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties and this Forum made the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per the Honourable Member Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao on behalf of the Bench)

1. The complainant filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Parties on 17.10.2013 and requested the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,72,025/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. till date of realization and also to direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- for legal expenditure.

2. The brief averments of the Complainant are as follows: The Complainant is stating that she is having “11 Debenture Certificates on her name issued by Shriram City Union Finance, for an amount of Rs.10,72,025/- and out of the 11 Debenture Certificates, in two certificates i.e. 50730679 & 50759027 her daughter Smt.K.Aruna is the nominee. In Three certificates i.e. 50719967, 50730676 & 50759030 her son K.Ganesh Kumar is the nominee. In Three certificates 50719968, 50730678 & 5075928 are daughter Smt.Rajyalakxmi Patnaik is the nominee. In the Three certificates 50719969, 50730677, 50759029 her another daughter Smt.Madhumathi Patnaik is the nominee.

3. After the death of her husband on 10.03.2012, she noticed that the said 11 Debenture Certificates were missing which was issued by the 1^st Opposite Party and in her search and enquiry it was found that they were stolen away by her daughters and retain in their possession. Initially her daughters came forward to handover the same on the 1^st Death Anniversary of her husband on 10.03.2013 it revealed that the documents which were in the custody of her younger daughter Smt.K.Aruna and she did not handover the same to her. Thereupon after several repeated requests they started black-mailing her in terms of settlement for dividing the said money values in parts of shares to them equally. Thereby her three daughters (1) Madhumathi Patnaik (2) K.Aruna (3) Rajyalakshmi Patnaik filed a false Suit in O.S.No.131/2013 on the file of II Addl Judge, Visakhapatnam against her and on her son Sri Ganesh Kumar. Subsequently after the request of the Complainant to the Opposite Parties by furnishing indemnity bond in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party for issuing the duplicate certificates, the 2^nd Opposite Party kept silent and returning back the indemnity bond furnished by the Complainant stating that the signatures of the Complainant are not tallying with signatures of indemnity bond and so they could not give duplicate bonds. As an old aged lady who is aged about 82 years, there are chances for change of signature from time to time due to the advancement of the age. Even after the said facts mentioned to the Opposite Parties, the Opposite parties had not given the certificates. She is suffering with paralysis stroke and at present her son is looking after her. Finally, she gave a request letter to 2^nd Opposite Party to cancel the debenture bonds and withdraw the same. On 6.6.2013 vide a Registered letter, she requested the 2^nd Opposite Party to identify her signatures viewing the indemnity bond and also to include her only son K.Ganesh Kumar as the sole nominee in all 11 debenture certificates. As the Opposite Party’s not responded having vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, a Legal Notice was issued on 24.07.2013 to settle the matter by refunding the amount. As the Opposite Parties kept quiet, the Complainant has filed the Complaint before this Forum seeking reliefs.

4. Notice served to the Opposite Parties. The 1^st Opposite Party called absent and set ex-parte and on behalf of Opposite Parties 2 & 3 K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate filed Vakalatnama. Even after 6 adjournments, Counter was not filed by the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties and thereby it was reiterated by the Complainant’s counsel that there was a compromise between the parties and on 23.06.2014, the Complainant filed “not press memo”, to close the matter, as the matter was settled out of court. In the said particular memo the Complainant and the Counsel for complainant was signed. Along with the not pres memo. Two Bank Statements of Complainant vide A/c No.5200005790942 pertaining to the transactions dt. 5.6.2014 & 10.06.2014 were filed. Observing the said two days transactions, it revealed that on 5.6.2014 Rs.10,67,454/- has been credited in her account and on 10.06.2014 Rs.7,89,003/- has been credited. At that stage when the matter was about to close by the Forum and one of the daughter Smt.K.Aruna has filed petition under Order I, Rule 10 for impleading her as 4^th Opposite Party in the main C.C. as she is one of the legal-heir of the Complainant. She has stated that a Civil suit was filed against the Complainant and her son Sri K.Ganesh Kumar (i.e. brother of Smt.K.Aruna) for partition of the movable and immovable properties including 11 Debentures which is on the name of the Complainant.

5. On 23.06.2014 when the Complainant has filed the not press memo, direction was given to the Complainant to appear before the Forum and Complainant was brought in ambulance on 25.06.2014 and in the presence of both counsels, Complainant has been enquired with regarding to the not press memo filed by her and she stated that “she has received the entire amount from the Opposite Parties and the Complaint can be closed”.

6. Observing the documents filed by the Complainant, the facts are as follows: On 16.5.2013 she has submitted a letter to Opposite Party No.1 to issue duplicate debenture certificates as the said documents were misplaced and could not be traced out. She also filed an Indemnity bond on 15.04.2013 stating that the said documents were misplaced if the said original documents were found the same will be delivered to the 1^st Opposite Party. After receiving letter dt. 16.12.2013, the 1^st Opposite Party stated vide letter that “Signatures on the applicant and the indemnity bond are not tallying”, so they could not give duplicate certificates. Even after receiving letters dt. 1.5.2013 & 01.06.2013, the Opposite Parties has not responded for giving the duplicate certificates and thereby on 6.6.2013, she requested the 2^nd Opposite Party to change the nominee in all 11 debenture certificates. She proposed her son “K.Ganesh Kumar as nominee” in all the 11 debenture certificates. Even for the said letter also Opposite Parties replied vide letter dt.12.06.2013 that the signatures of the complainant are not tallying and hence they could not proceed further. Observing the IA filed under Order 19, Rule-1 in CC 131/2013 it seems the Hon’ble VIIth Junior Civil Judge has passed ad-interim injunction not t alienate the immovable property mentioned in OS 131/2013. Finally on 24.04.2014. She gave a request letter to the Opposite Parties to settle the matter at the earliest. But Opposite party’s kept silent.

7. Viewing the list of the debenture certificates filed by the Complainant, it seems there are 24 debenture certificates on the name of the Complainant and out of that she has filed the copies of 11 debenture certificates only along with this Complaint which reveals that all the certificates are on the name of the Complainant only and perusing the certificates, it reveals that her son and three daughters are nominees of the said 11 debenture certificates.

8. On 23.06.2014 her daughter Smt.K.Aruna filed an implead petition to implead her as the 4^th Opposite Party in main C.C. Observing the 11 debenture certificates, as the said documents are on the name of the Complainant and that too as she was alive with sound mind. She herself gave statement on 25.06.2014 when she was brought in ambulance by two attendants. Hence, observing the entire facts and circumstances this Forum dismissed the I.A. No.162/2014 as it was not maintainable as per law.

9. Observing the aforementioned 11 debenture certificates and the not press memo dt.23.06.2014 filed by the Complainant along with the Two Bank Statements, it shows that the Opposite Parties has credited the amount into the Bank A/c of the Complainant on 5.6.2014 and 10.6.2014. As per the principle of Rule-4, Cl-7 of A.P.C.P. Rules 1987, “when the Opposite Party admitting the allegation made by the Complainant, Forumshall decide the Complaint on basis of merits of the case and documents presented before it”. Here in this matter, the Opposite Parties has not file Counter and after receiving Documents from Forum, inspite of that without filing counter itself they have deposited the amounts alleged by the Complainant in her Bank A/c on 5.6.2014 & 10.06.2014. So viewing the principle of Rule-4, Clause-7 of A.P.C.P.Rules, 1987 along with Two Bank Statements filed by the Complainant and the not press memo dt. 23.06.2014 furnished by the Complainant, we are firm decision that there is no need for further adjudication, as the Opposite Parties has deposited the amount in the Bank A/c of the company and hence the Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn by Complainant. No order to costs.

10. In the result the I.A. No.163/2014 is dismissed as it is not maintainable and consequently the Complaint is dismissed (vide separate order) as the Complainant has withdrawn the Complaint vide Memo dt.23.06.2014. No order as to costs.

    Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced  by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of August, 2014.

     

     

          Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

    President (FAC)                                                        Member                                                                                                         District Consumer Forum – I,

                                                                                 Visakhapatnam