BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 18^th of March 2011

PRESENT

                                              SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                                                                   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                                                                       SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.191/2010

(Admitted on 09.07.2010)

Sri K. Suresh Rao,

Aged about 48 years,

Nakshatra D.No.1 153 1B,

Bajal Karmar Manilekady,

Mangalore  575 007.                                   …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Victor M. D’Silva)

          VERSUS

1.       Chairperson & Managing Director,

          Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.,

1. Government of India Enterprise),

Recent Address  

R.E.C. Ltd., Infrastructure,

Bond Section, R.C.M. Share Registrar,

Box No.106, Sector 2,

NOIDA UP 201 301.

Old Address :

In Bond : - Regd. Ofice : Core-4,

Scope Complex 7,

Lodhi Road,

New Delhi – 110 003.

New Address :

Infra Structure Bond Section,

RCM Share Registrar Box No.106,

Sector -2, Noida (U.P.) – 201 301.

2.       Sri Subramanya,

          Anugraha Visions,

          4-2-222/15 Ground Floor,

          Bhavani Ganesh Complex,

          Tele – 2223878,

          Mangalore – Near KSRTC.         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. K. Sudhakar Joshi)

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The complainant submits that he had purchased the bond of 1^st Opposite Party company through the 2^nd Opposite Party and the same has been paid by way of cheque dtd.08.01.2003 and encashed by 1^st Opposite Party.  The above said cheque was given to 2^nd Opposite Party at Mangalore, which has been encashed on 01.09.2003 at Mangalore.  It is stated that the maturity value of the bond is Rs.10,000/-.   It is further stated that after the maturity, the complainant sent reminders during last two years, but the Opposite Parties not paid the maturity value till this date.  Hence, filed the above complaint alleging deficiency against the Opposite Parties under Section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction from this Forum to pay the maturity value of the bond with interest and also claimed compensation and cost of the proceedings. 

          2.  The Opposite Parties have appeared through their counsel filed separate version and contended that this FORA has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the 1^st Opposite Party has its registered office in New Delhi and there is no branch office at Mangalore at the time of registration of the complaint.  Consequently, the complaint is not maintainable. 

          The another submission of the Opposite Parties is that the two bonds allotted in the name of the complainant on 31.01.2003 with the tenure of five years and maturity dated 31.01.2008.  The bond payment will be made only on surrendering the bond certificate.  It is stated that during the pendency of the complaint, the 1^st Opposite Party had discharged the bond certificate amount and the same has been forwarded with MICR No.790840 dated 31.10.2009 for Rs.10,000/- and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.  In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether this FORA has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Mr. K. Suresh Rao (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.   The Complainant has produced 3 documents as listed in the annexure. One Mr. S. Pradhan (RW1), G.M. (Finance) of Opposite Parties filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex R1 to R7 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure.   The complainant as well as the Opposite Parties have produced notes of arguments.  

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative

                       Point No.(iii)       : As per the final order.              

Reasons

5. Point No. (i): In the instant case, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the bond of 1^st Opposite Party Company through the 2^nd Opposite Party and the same has been paid by way of cheque dated 08.01.2003, which has been encashed on 01.09.2003 at Mangalore that means the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this FORA.   Hence, this FORA has got jurisdiction to entertain the case and the complaint falls within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. 

6. Point No.(ii) & (iii): As far as deficiency is concerned both the parties i.e., the complainant and the Opposite Parties herein have admitted that during the pendency of this case, the above said bond amount has been forwarded with MICR No.790840 dated 31.10.2009 for Rs.10,000/- that means the Opposite Party paid the above said amount after the maturity date. The Opposite Parties supposed to realize the above said amount on or before 31.01.2008.  But in the instant case, there is an inordinate delay for about 21 months.  The Opposite Parties should have realized the amount on 31.01.2008 or within a reasonable time.  But in the instant case, there is a delay on the part of the Opposite Parties.  We have further observed that, though there is a delay the Opposite Parties paid only the bond amount and not the interest.  Incase, if the bond amount was kept under F.D. in any Nationalized Banks, the complainant could have received the interest on the said amount.  Both the counsels appearing for the parties while addressing their arguments agreed for settlement but the counsel for the complainant pressed for compensation and cost of the proceedings. By considering the delay on the part of the Opposite Parties caused financial loss to the complainant rather mental agony to pursue the matter.  By considering the above circumstances, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the reasonable compensation and cost in this case.  Since the Opposite Parties have not paid the interest on the above said bond, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay 10% p.a. interest on the above said bond amount from the date of realization till the date of payment made and also pay Rs.1,000/- cost of the litigation expenses.  The Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed.  Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay 10% p.a. interest on the above said bond amount from the date of realization till the date of payment made and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses.   Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of failure till the date of payment.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18^th day of March 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.K.Suresh Rao – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Doc. No.1 – 31.01.2003: Xerox copy of the bond.

Doc. No.2 – 31.05.2010: Xerox copy of the last and III reminder letter.

Doc. No.3 – 31.05.2010: Postal receipt.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:

RW1 – Mr.S.Pradhan, Deputy General Manager (Finance) of the Opposite Party No.1.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:    

Ex R1 – 31.01.2003: Xerox copy of the bond certificate.

Ex R2 – 06.09.2009: Xerox copy of the letter issued by the

                                Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.

Ex R3 -                :  Xerox copy of the registration receipt bearing

                                No.33157.

Ex R4 – 31.05.2010: Xerox copy of the last and III reminder letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.

Ex R5 – 10.06.2010: Letter of the Opposite Party No.1 to the HDFC Bank, New Delhi regarding stop payment (Xerox).

Ex R6 -                  : Speed post racking report (Xerox).

Ex R7 – 03.08.2010: Letter of the HDFC Bank to the Complainant confirming the payment (Xerox).

Dated:18/03/2011                                      PRESIDENT