This case is coming for final hearing on 03-09-2014 in the presence of M/s.Sri D.N.S.Gupta, Advocate for Complainant and Sri Ch.R.Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for Opposite party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

: O R D E R :

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

1. The complainant Smt.Kandi Indira Kumari, filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act on 10.10.2003 and requested the Forum (1) to refund an amount of Rs.15,090/- with 24% interest from 06.08.1998 till realization (2) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and discomfort (3) to award costs of Rs.1,000/- (4) to grant any other relief or reliefs as per the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments are as follows: The 1^st Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.13,000/- with the Opposite Party on 20.04.1998 under FDR No.404827 for a period of one year at 15% interest on monthly basis, which was matured on 19.04.1999. As seen from the copy of the FDR Receipt No.404827 it seems the Complainant No.2 mentioned in the complaint is a nominee in the FDR No.404827. After maturity period the complainant handover the original FDR to the Opposite Party for payment of the FDR amount which repayable on 15.11.2001. Inspite of refunding the amount, the Opposite Party deviated the directions of the Company Law Board. The complainant got issued Legal Notice to the Opposite Party on 1.9.2003 and Opposite Party replied on 16.09.2003 with false allegation and grounds. Hence the Complainant filed the present Complaint against the Opposite Party seeking reliefs.

3. Notice served to the Opposite Party. On behalf of the Opposite Parties Sri V.S.Narayanan filed Counter Affidavit in the capacity of Company secretary in Opposite Party company and stated as follows. The Opposite Party has filed W.A.No.811/2001 along with Interim application in CMP No.7092/2001 & 2093/2001 before the Hon’ble High court of Judicature at Madras. In the CMP No.7093/2001, the Respondents (Opposite Party) sought for the relief as follows. “Grant an Order of injunction restraining the First and the Second Respondents and the Presiding Officers of the various State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and their subordinate District Consumer Redressal Forums within the Union of India in any way entertaining any Complaints and processing the same in relation to the claims against the Petitioner’s Company and its Directors and Officers in respect of Fixed Deposits and other dues”.  On 25.04.2001, the said Writ Appeal was posted for hearing and Hon’ble Bench passed an order stating that “The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the Directors of the Company cannot be held personally liable without the permission of BIFR. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. P.N.B.Capital Services Ltd. (2000 Vol.101 Comp. Cas.264). Notice of motion returnable by eight weeks. Meanwhile interim injunction for ten weeks. After completion of 10 weeks on 2^nd July 2001 Hon’ble Court made further orders stating that “Appellant to get the respondents served. Private notice is permitted. Meanwhile the interim Order to continue. Since none of the respondents have so far filed any petition/application or vacating the injunction presently in force. Along with the counter the Opposite Party has filed copy of the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide CMP No.7092/2001 & 7093/2001 in W.A.No.811/2001”.

4. After filing the counter, from 22.04.2004 onwards as seen from the earlier docket proceedings as the “stay is continues” till 28.06.2013. On 28.06.2013 the Opposite Party filed Affidavit along with Typed Set of document on behalf of Opposite Party.

5. On behalf of Opposite Party Sri S.Ramaswamy in the capacity of Dy.General Manager stated that “the factum of the Opposite Party company having discharged the liabilities due to the Depositors of the Opposite Party including the Complainant herein through a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Sec.391 of the Companies Act, 1956 sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras vide Orders dt.10.02.2012 and 21.02.2012. The payments were made to all the Depositors of the Opposite Party company vide cheques dt.10^th July, 2012. The Opposite Parties main business of Prawn Culture had to be shut down pursuant to the Order dt. 11.12.1996 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.561 of 1994. Since the matters relating to SICK status of the Opposite Party company, it has been pending either before BIFR and Appellate Authority for Industrial and Finance Reconstruction, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. Writ Appeal No.811/2001 which was mentioned earlier by the Opposite Party in the Counter Affidavit has been disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras n 28.08.2008. As the Opposite Party is permitted to discharge the liability for payment as per the Para No.7 of the Order dt.28.08.2008. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras was pleased to accept the above company application and passed a detailed Order inter alia by the following directions. In that said order one of the direction is “the depositors of the company be categorized into Class “A” (deposits of Rs.5,000/- and below) and Class “B” depositors (deposits of Rs.5,001/- and above). As per the said scheme of arrangement and compromise of the outstanding deposits with the Opposite Party company is to be settled in one single lump sum installment basing upon the principle of dividing the categories into Class “A” & Class “B”. For Class “A” the amount of refund shall be 100% and for Class “B”, the amount refund shall be 25% of the principal amount only. As the complainant’s FDR No.105154 is for Rs.50,000/- which falls under Class “B” Complainant is entitled for refund of 25% of the principal amount i.e. Rs.12,500/- only. So basing upon the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras an amount of Rs.12,500/- i.e. 25% of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited, paid to the Complainant on 10.07.2012 vide Cheque No.002249 and the same was cleared on 7.8.2012. As the Opposite Party has paid the amount as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide W.A.No.811/2001 dt.28.8.2008 as the complaint may be dismissed as the complainant have received the amount in full and final settlement.

6. Observing the afore mentioned pleadings of both sides the following points are framed for consideration:

   1. Whether there is deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties

   2. To what relief complainant is entitled.

7. Point No.1 & 2 : The present complaint is filed by the Complainant for refund of the Rs.15,000/- amount as per the terms and conditions of the FDR No.404827 which was deposited by the Complainant. The Opposite Party initially at the time of filing counter affidavit stated W.A.811/2001 was pending and stay was granted and the said stage of “stay continues” was continued for a very long pending time from 02.01.2004 to 28.06.2013. At that juncture on 28.06.2014 Opposite Party filed Affidavit stating that as per the direction in W.A.No.811/2001 decided on 28.08.2008 and basing upon the terms, the Opposite Party has deposited the amount of Rs.3,250/- in the bank account of the Complainant on 10.07.2012 and the same was encashed on 2.8.2012. Observing the docket proceedings from 02.01.2004 to 03.09.2014 there is no representation on behalf of the complainant. Even from 12.07.2013 onwards because of Agitation of bifurcation of the A.P.State also though the “Advocates Abstained from Work” till 10.04.2014, there is no representation on behalf of complainant. As per the Case Law III (1993) CPJ 318 (NC), between Vinay Motors Co. Vs Garibsingh, it was held, “it is the duty of Complainant to find out the progress of his case. When it was fixed on a particular date, party cannot sit at his house and want for Notices”. Hence the matter was posted for Orders to decide it on merits on 3.9.2014 basing upon the Principle of Sec.13(2)(c) of Act along with the documents available with the bundle.

8. Observing the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dt. 28.08.2008 (i.e. copy furnished by the Opposite Party) Viewing the Para no.7 & 8 of the Judgement it reveals that Rs.911.99 Lacs held by 6709 depositors had already been matured for the payment as on 31.10.2000 and it was not yet paid to the Depositors. Orally it was prayed to allow the Appellate company to pay the matured amount in favour of the Depositors and also stated that it was always for the Appellate company to perform its duty in accordance with law. The schedule of the payment with regarding to the FDRs kept with Opposite Parties in various denominations reveals that there are 2577 Depositors pertaining to the FDRs related to 10001-15000 and basing upon the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras only 25% of the amount should be paid to the FDR holder. So as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and observing proceedings of the Opposite Party dt. 10.07.2012 complainant is entitled for only Rs.3,250/- i.e. 25% of  Rs.13,000/- amount from the Opposite Party.

9. As seen from the letter dt. 10.07.2012 and 1.10.2012 of Bank of India it seems an amount of Rs.3,250/- has been paid to complainant vide Cheque No.4414 on 10.07.2012 and it was encashed on 2.8.2012.

10. In the light of the entire facts and observing the Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.A.No.811/2001 dt.28.8.2008 along with Statement for Settlement of the principal amount in Class “B” (Schedule-I) for FDR No.404827 of Complainant and certificate dt. 01.10.2012, it reveals that the Opposite Party has paid the amount of Rs.3,250/-. Hence, we conclude that there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs.

11. In the result the Complaint is dismissed without costs.

    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of September, 2014.

     

          Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

    President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                       District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                Visakhapatnam